Bombay High Court
THE STATE OF MAHversusGOVIND PANDHARI KENDRE
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The Court dismissed the State’s appeals, partly allowed the claimants’ cross‑objections, and fixed enhanced compensation at Rs 2,340 per R.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against awards of compensation granted by a Reference Court for land acquired in 2002‑2004 for the Malhipparga Percolation Tank No. 9. The Reference Court had enhanced compensation based on certain sale instances, but the State argued the enhancement was excessive and not based on comparable sales, while the claimants sought further increase, invoking a prior decision (First Appeal No. 378 of 2012) for parity. The Court examined whether the earlier decision could be applied, noting the different notifications and that the sale instance relied upon there involved a tiny parcel and was not comparable. It held that only the sale deed of Exhibit‑22 (Rs 1,935 per R) was relevant, limiting any further enhancement to a 10 % escalation for two years. Consequently, the Court dismissed the State’s appeals, partly allowed the claimants’ cross‑objections, fixed enhanced compensation at Rs 2,340 per R, affirmed statutory benefits and interest under the Land Acquisition Act, and confirmed the remaining awards. The order also disposed of pending civil applications and directed payment of deficit court fees.
Issues considered
- Whether the compensation awarded in First Appeal No. 378 of 2012 can be used as a benchmark for the present land‑acquisition cases.
- Whether the Reference Court’s enhancement exceeds the limits prescribed by the Land Acquisition Act and the Government Resolution No.Sankirna‑2014/Prak.Kra.4/Bham‑1/A‑4.
- Whether further enhancement beyond the Reference Court’s award is warranted based on the sale instances on record.
- Whether the State’s appeal against the enhanced awards should be dismissed.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 28, 34, 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation enhancement
- reference court
- parity of awards
- sale instances
- interest under Land Acquisition Act
- government resolution
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:38851
1 of 11 Sr. Nos.901 & 902
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
901 X-OBJECTION NO. 66 OF 2026
IN FA/1862/2011
GANPATI VITHAL JADHAV
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
...
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8698 OF 2009
IN FA/1875/2011
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
VERSUS
DIGAMBER MAROTI KENDRE
…
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8690 OF 2009
IN FA/1865/2011
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
VERSUS
KIRAN GOVIND PAWAR AND ANR
…
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8688 OF 2009
IN FA/1866/2011
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
VERSUS
DIGAMBAR VITHAL WADJE
…
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8694 OF 2009
IN FA/1863/2011
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
VERSUS
SANGRAM DIGAMBAR JADHAV
…
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1863 OF 2011
2 of 11 Sr. Nos.901 & 902
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
VERSUS
SANGRAM DIGAMBAR JADHAV
…
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1864 OF 2011
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
VERSUS
UTTAM GOVINDRAO MORE
…
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 287 OF 2026
IN FA/1867/2011
NAGORAO MAROTI PAWAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
…
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1867 OF 2011
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
VERSUS
NAGORAO MAROTI PAWAR
…
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1875 OF 2011
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
VERSUS
DIGAMBER MAROTI KENDRE
…
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 285 OF 2026
IN FA/1863/2011
SANGRAM DIGAMBAR JADHAV
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
…
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1866 OF 2011
3 of 11 Sr. Nos.901 & 902
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
VERSUS
DIGAMBAR VITHAL WADJE
…
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 284 OF 2026
IN FA/1865/2011
KIRAN GOVIND PAWAR MINOR U/G MOTHER SUNITA GOVIND
PAWAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
…
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 283 OF 2026
IN FA/1875/2011
DIGAMBER MAROTI KENDRE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
…
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8696 OF 2009
IN FA/1862/2011
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
VERSUS
GANPATI VITHAL JADHAV AND ANR
…
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1862 OF 2011
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
VERSUS
GANPATI VITHAL JADHAV AND ANR
…
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1865 OF 2011
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
VERSUS
KIRAN GOVIND PAWAR AND ANR
…
4 of 11 Sr. Nos.901 & 902
AND
902 X-OBJECTION NO. 286 OF 2026
IN FA/1861/2011
GOVIND PANDHARI KENDRE AND ANR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1861 OF 2011
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
VERSUS
GOVIND PANDHARI KENDRE
…
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8684 OF 2009
IN FA/1861/2011
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
VERSUS
GOVIND PANDHARI KENDRE
…
Mr. Ashwin Sakolkar h/f. Mr. Vijay G. Sakolkar, Advocate for the
Claimants in all the matters.
Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for State in all the matters.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2026
P.C.:-
1. Since the acquisition proceedings pertain to the year 2004,
the appeals are heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates
for the respective parties.
2. By the present appeals, the Appellants/State are challenging
the judgment and award dated 22.02.2008 passed by the learned Civil
5 of 11 Sr. Nos.901 & 902
Judge Senior Division, Ahmedpur Camp at Udgir, District Latur in LAR
Nos.422/2007, 429/2007, 424/2007, 425/2007, 423/2007, 426/2007,
427/2007 and 428/2007, whereby the learned Reference Court
enhanced the compensation. The Claimants filed cross objections
seeking further compensation for their acquired land.
3. Brief facts of the present cases are as under:-
(i) The land of the Claimants was acquired for construction of
Malhipparga Percolation Tank No.9 at village Malhipparga,
Taluka Jalkot, District Latur.
(ii) The possession of the acquired land was taken on 15.06.2002
and thereafter, the Notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) was published on
15.07.2004.
(iii) The Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “LAO”) passed the
award on 20.02.2007. The LAO granted compensation at the
rate of Rs.889/- per R for Group-I land and Rs.978/- per R for
Group-II land.
(iv) The learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation to
Rs.3,100/- per R for dry land and Rs.4,650/- per R for seasonally
irrigated land. Before the learned Reference Court, the Claimants
relied upon the sale instances at Exhibits-21, 22 and 23 and led
evidence through CW-1, the deposition of the Claimant,
6 of 11 Sr. Nos.901 & 902
Digamber Maroti Kendre, below Exhibit-24; CW-2, the
deposition of the Vendor, Raghunath Rasoji Kendre, below
Exhibit-25; CW-3, the deposition of the Vendor, Babu Digambar
Kendre, below Exhibit-26; and CW-4, the deposition of the Seller,
Shankar Dhondiba Tidake, below Exhibit-27. The Claimants also
relied upon the award passed by the LAO, the E-statement and
the 7/12 extracts and claimed enhanced compensation. After
considering the sale instances, the learned Reference Court
granted compensation at the rate of Rs.3,100/- per R for jirayat
land and Rs.4,650/- per R for seasonally irrigated land.
Therefore, being aggrieved by the same, the present appeals
have been filed.
4. Mr. S. S. Dande, learned AGP for the State, submits that the
learned Reference Court granted the compensation without considering
the sale instances from the same village. The learned Reference Court
has not considered that the LAO has granted the compensation after
considering the sale instances from the same village, as well as the
nature, proximity, location, quality, classification and potential of the
land which was acquired. He submits that the learned Reference Court
has not taken into consideration that the compensation which was
awarded was exorbitant and that the LAO has rightly determined the
compensation.
7 of 11 Sr. Nos.901 & 902
5. Per contra, Mr. Ashwin Sakolkar h/f. Mr. Vijay G. Sakolkar,
learned Advocate for the Claimants in all the matters, submits that the
learned Reference Court has granted very meagre and inadequate
compensation. Therefore, they have filed cross-objections.
6. He further relied upon the order dated 10.04.2026 passed by
this Court in First Appeal No.378 of 2012, whereby the land from the
same village was acquired for Percolation Tank Nos.2 and 8, wherein
this Court has considered the sale instance below Exhibit-13 and, on
the basis of that, the compensation was awarded. Therefore, he
submits that, on the ground of parity, as the land is from the same
village, though from different notifications, this Court has already
awarded the compensation. Therefore, once this Court has already
determined the compensation for the land from the same village,
though under a different notification, the Claimants are entitled to
receive the rate as granted by this Court in the First Appeal.
7. He further submits that the compensation awarded by the
learned Reference Court is within four times the compensation
awarded by the LAO and therefore, appeals filed by the State deserve
to be dismissed as per the Government Resolution
No.Sankirna-2014/Prak.Kra.4/Bham-1/A-4 dated 03.11.2016. Hence,
he prays to allow the cross objections filed by the Claimants and
dismiss the appeals filed by the State.
8 of 11 Sr. Nos.901 & 902
8. Having heard learned Advocates for the respective parties
and with their assistance, I have gone through the copy of the record
and proceedings. Before proceeding to decide the present appeals, it
needs to be considered whether the order passed by this Court in First
Appeal No.378 of 2012 can be considered for granting parity in favour
of the Claimants. After going through the order passed by this Court, in
fact, it can be gathered that, in those appeals, the Notifications were
issued on 03.02.2005 and 10.03.2005 for the same village for
Percolation Tank No.8 and Percolation Tank No.2. Here, in the present
case, the Notification was issued on 15.07.2004 and, therefore, there
are different Notifications. As regards the awards are concerned,
separate awards were passed. Even the sale instance dated 29.11.1999
at Exhibit-13 upon which this Court has relied in First Appeal No.378
of 2012 is prior to Section 4 Notification which was issued in those
matters.
9. More particularly, the learned AGP has pointed out that the
said sale instance at Exhibit-13 is for a small piece of land. He further
submits that there were many percolation tanks constructed in the
same village, whereby the residents of the village were aware of the
possible of acquisition of their lands, therefore, they executed sale
deeds at exorbitant rates to receive higher rate of compensation.
10. The record of First Appeal No.378 of 2012 was called for
9 of 11 Sr. Nos.901 & 902
kind perusal of this Court. The sale instance at Exhibit-13 therein
reveals that the dry land admeasuring 9 R was sold for Rs.64,000/-
(Rs.7,111/- per R) on 29.11.1999. The land in the said sale instance
pertains to very small piece of land. As numerous percolation tanks
were being constructed in the village, the residents were well aware of
possibility of acquisition of their lands. Thus, possibility cannot be
ruled out that the sale deeds could have been executed at higher rates
with a view to get higher compensation for the acquired lands. In
addition to this, the notification and the awards in the present matter
as well as the acquisition proceeding in First Appeal No.378 of 2012
are different. In view of aforesaid discussion, I am not inclined to treat
sale instance at Exhibit-13 in First Appeal No.378 of 2012 comparable
with the present matter. Therefore, the present Claimants are not
entitled to receive compensation at the rate mentioned in sale instance
at Exhibit-13.
11. As, in the present case, the Claimants relied upon three sale
instances at Exhibits-21, 22 and 23. Though, the learned Advocate for
the Claimants tried to impress this Court by pressing upon Exhibits-21
and 23 by contending that the same are from adjacent village, I am not
inclined to treat the same as comparable with the acquired land on the
ground that sale instance from the same village at Exhibit-22 is
available on record. It is not in dispute that this Court has granted
10 of 11 Sr. Nos.901 & 902
enhancement in First Appeal No.378 of 2012 by relying upon sale
instance at Exhibit-13, but the said sale instance was not produced on
record before the learned Reference Court in the present matter, on this
ground also, the said sale instance cannot be relied upon in subsequent
stage.
12. As regards Exhibit-22 is concerned, the said sale deed is
dated 29.01.2002 whereby 15.5 R was sold for Rs.30,000/-, which
comes to Rs.1,935/- per R. The said sale instance was rightly treated as
comparable sale instance for determining market value of the acquired
land.
13. Considering the above, I find that the learned Reference
Court, after considering the sale instance below Exhibit-22, has already
determined the compensation and, therefore, there is no scope for
granting further enhancement except to the extent of applying 10%
escalation for two years. Therefore, I am inclined to partly allow the
cross objections.
14. Furthermore, as regards the enhancement granted by the
learned Reference Court being within four times the compensation
granted by the LAO, the appeals filed by the State deserved to be
dismissed as per the Government Resolution No.Sankirna-2014
/Prak.Kra.4/Bham-1/A-4 dated 03.11.2016. Hence, I proceed to pass
the following order:-
11 of 11 Sr. Nos.901 & 902
ORDER
(i) The first appeals filed by the State are dismissed. No
order as to costs.
(ii) The cross-objections filed by the Claimants are partly
allowed.
(iii) The Claimants are entitled to receive enhanced
compensation of Rs.2340/- per R and to that extent,
impugned awards stand modified.
(iv) The Claimants are entitled to all the statutory benefits in
accordance with Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
(v) The Claimants are entitled to interest under Sections 28
and 34 of the Act from the date of award as per Full
Bench judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra
Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari, reported in 2016(3) Mh.L.J.
457.
(vi) Rest of the impugned awards stand confirmed.
(vii) Modified awards be drawn accordingly.
(viii) Deficit Court fees be paid.
(ix) Pending Civil Applications, if any, are also disposed of.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Tauseef
Checking your session…