Bombay High Court
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NANDUR MADHAMESHWAR OFFICE, VAIJAPUR, AURANGABADversusMACHHINDRA BABURAO GAIKWAD AND ANR
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The Court held that the sale deed with the higher consideration (Exhibit 16) must be used for enhancement, applying the statutory deduction to it.
Summary
The appellant, Machindra Baburao Gaikwad, challenged the compensation of Rs.1,339 per R awarded for land acquired for a canal project, seeking enhancement based on two sale deeds executed in May 2001. The lower Reference Court considered the later sale deed (Exhibit 17) and applied a 10% per annum deduction, but the appellant argued that the earlier sale deed (Exhibit 16) showing a higher consideration of Rs.14,250 per R should be used. The court examined whether post‑Section 4 notification sale deeds could be relied upon for enhancement and whether the higher‑valued deed should prevail. Relying on the principle that the deed with the higher consideration must be chosen, the court held that the earlier deed should be used, applying the statutory deduction to it. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, enhancing compensation to Rs.12,825 per R, directing the acquiring body to pay the amount with interest as per a prior Full Bench decision, and dismissing the acquiring body’s counter‑appeal.
Issues considered
- When a landowner presents multiple sale deeds for compensation enhancement, which deed should be considered?
- Can sale deeds executed after the Section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 be used for enhancement?
- Is the 10% per annum deduction from consideration appropriate in calculating enhanced compensation?
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 18, 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation enhancement
- sale deed valuation
- Section 4 notification
- deduction percentage
- interest
- appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:42193
1
FA 1798 OF 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1798 OF 2018
MACHINDRA BABURAO GAIKWAD
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 851 OF 2021
IN FAST/13944/2020
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NANDUR MADHAMESHWAR
OFFICE, VAIJAPUR, AURANGABAD
VERSUS
MACHHINDRA BABURAO GAIKWAD AND ANR
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 852 OF 2021
IN FAST/13944/2020
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NANDUR MADHAMESHWAR
OFFICE, VAIJAPUR, AURANGABAD
VERSUS
MACHHINDRA BABURAO GAIKWAD AND ANR
…
Mr. A. D. Kasliwal, Advocate for Appellant/Claimant
Mr. B. V. Virdhe, AGP for Respondent No.1 – State
Mrs. Chaitali R. Kutti - Choudhary, Advocate for Respondent
No.2/Acquiring Body
…
CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
DATED : 8th September 2026
P.C. :-
. Subject Matter :
a. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award dated
03.02.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,
2
FA 1798 OF 2018
Vaijapur in Land Acquisition Reference No.791 of 2010, the
appellant/claimant has filed this First Appeal.
b. Considering the short controversy arising in the appeal,
the matter is taken up for final disposal at the stage of
admission by consent of the parties.
c. The appellant's land comprised in Gut No.98,
admeasuring 0.18 R, situated at village Vaijapur Tq. Vaijapur
Dist. Aurangabad was acquired by the respondent-acquiring
body for the construction of Left Canal for Narangi Medium
Project. The land acquisition proceedings were completed and
the award came to be passed. The compensation awarded was
Rs.1,339/- per R. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the appellant
lodged a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894.
d. During the trial, the claimant relied upon two sale
instances at Exhibit 16 and Exhibit 17. Suffice to note, the first
sale instance was dated 05.05.2001 and the second sale
instance was dated 17.05.2001. The first sale instance was in
respect of 0.20 Guntha land, whereas the second sale instance
was in respect of 0.23 R land. Placing reliance upon these two
sale instances, the claimant/appellant claimed compensation
at the rate of Rs.11,190/- per R.
3
FA 1798 OF 2018
e. The Reference Court heard the parties and accepted the
evidence tendered by the claimant. However, while accepting
the sale instances for enhancement, the Reference Court
considered the subsequent sale deed dated 17.05.2001,
wherein lesser consideration was shown.
2. Submissions on behalf of the Appellant/Claimant :
a. Mr. A. D. Kasliwal, learned Advocate for the
appellant/claimant would submit that when two sale
instances were before the Reference Court, the Reference
Court ought to have considered the sale instance which was
for higher consideration.
b. He would further submit that the sale deed which was
executed earlier ought to have been taken into consideration,
wherein the consideration was shown at Rs.14,250/- per R.
c. Hence, Mr. Kasliwal, learned Advocate for the
appellant/claimant prays for allowing the First Appeal and for
escalation of the enhancement.
3. Submissions on behalf of the Acquiring Body :
a. Mrs. Chaitali R. Kutti – Choudhary, learned Advocate
for the acquiring body would strongly oppose the appeal.
b. She would submit that evidently the sale instances
relied upon by the appellant/claimant are subsequent to the
4
FA 1798 OF 2018
notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
c. Considering the area covered by the sale instances, the
Reference Court ought to have relied upon the said sale
instances. She would submit that the acquiring body has also
filed First Appeal, which is tagged together challenging the
enhancement on these two counts.
d. Mrs. Kutti submits that, considering that the sale
instances were post Section 4 notification, it ought to be held
that there was nothing on record to seek enhancement in the
compensation.
e. In view of this, the SLAO was justified in not granting
compensation on the formula which she produces before this
Court from the office record. She would submit that, hence,
the award at the rate of Rs.1,339/- per R stands justified.
f. With this, Mrs. Kutti submits that the appeal filed by the
claimant be dismissed and the appeal filed by the acquiring
body be allowed.
4. Consideration :
a. I have heard both the learned Advocates for the parties
at length.
b. True that the sale instances produced by the claimant in
support of his claim for enhancement were post the Section 4
5
FA 1798 OF 2018
notification. The Section 4 notification was published in the
Official Gazette on 09.11.2000 and, hardly within six months
therefrom, the sale transactions were executed.
c. The Reference Court relied upon the judgment rendered
by this Court in Chandrashekhar Vs. Land Acquisition Officer,
reported in 2012(3) Mh.L.J. 8, and observed that reliance
could be placed upon such sale deeds by deducting 10% of the
consideration annually.
d. Thus, the Reference Court considered the sale deed at
Exhibit 17 deducting 10% per annum from the rate of
consideration under the said sale deed. I do not find that the
analogy applied by the Reference Court warrants interference.
However, I have reservation about considering Exhibit 17
instead of Exhibit 16.
e. This is a piece of beneficial legislation. When two sale
instances are before the Court, it is expected that the Court
should opt for the one which is executed for higher
consideration.
f. In view of this, I accept the contention of Mr. Kasliwal,
learned Advocate for the appellant/claimant that the
escalation ought to have been done by taking the rate of
Rs.14,250/- per R.
6
FA 1798 OF 2018
g. Considering the sale instance at Exhibit 16 obviously,
the deduction applied by the Reference Court at the rate of
10% per annum would be applicable to the escalation placing
reliance upon Exhibit 16.
h. In view of the above discussion, I find that First Appeal
No.1798 of 2018 filed by the claimant deserves to be allowed.
Hence I pass following order :
ORDER
I. The First Appeal is allowed.
II. The claimant shall be entitled to
compensation at the rate of Rs.12,825/- per R.
III. The acquiring body shall deposit the
enhanced compensation before this Court within
a period of six months from today, together with
accrued interest thereon.
IV. The interest part shall be governed by the
law laid down by the Full Bench judgment in the
case of State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva
Rangari, reported in 2016 (4) ALL MR 513.
V. The appellant/claimant shall not be
entitled to the interest and statutory benefits for
the delayed period.
VI. The appellant/claimant shall be entitled
to withdraw the amount deposited with interest,
without making any separate application for
withdrawal.
7
FA 1798 OF 2018
VII. In view of allowing First Appeal No.1798
of 2018 filed by the claimant, the First Appeal
filed by the acquiring body which is tagged with
the present appeal stands dismissed.
VIII. While depositing the enhancement, any
amount already deposited shall be adjusted.
IX. The appellant/claimant shall pay the
requisite additional court fees on the enhanced
compensation, if applicable.
X. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )
PRW
Checking your session…