Bombay High Court
RAMLU MALLESHU BANDIWAR DIED THROUGH LRS RADHABAI AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH DISTRICT COLLECTOR, NANDED AND ORS.
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The Court partially allowed the appeals, fixing compensation at Rs 1,53,000 per hectare based on the 1996 sale and granting statutory benefits.
Summary
The appellants challenged the compensation awarded for land acquired in 1995 for an irrigation project, arguing that the reference court erred by applying a 15% escalation and ignoring sale instances prior to the Section 4 notification. The State contended that sale instances within the municipal limits of Kinwat were not comparable because the land was acquired for irrigation and lay outside the municipal area. The Court examined the sale records, noting that only a sale from the village Digi Gokunda dated 01‑03‑1996 fell outside municipal limits and preceded the Section 4 notification. Relying on this comparable sale, the Court held that the market value should be Rs 1,53,000 per hectare and modified the award accordingly. It also directed that the claimants receive statutory benefits, including interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and disposed of pending civil applications.
Issues considered
- Whether sale instances within the municipal limits of Kinwat can be treated as comparable for determining compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
- Whether the 15% annual escalation applied by the reference court is appropriate in the absence of suitable comparable sales.
- Whether a sale transaction dated 01‑03‑1996, occurring before the Section 4 notification, can be used to fix market value.
- Entitlement of claimants to statutory benefits and interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Act.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 18, 28, 34, 4, 6
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- comparable sale
- escalation
- Section 4 notification
- municipal limits
- statutory benefits
- interest
- Land Acquisition Act 1894
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:38461
1 of 7 Sr. Nos.21 and 72
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
21 FIRST APPEAL NO. 887 OF 2007
KISHANRAO DEVANNA ALLENIWAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...
Mr. S. V. Kurundkar, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. A. D. Wange, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. S. S. Dande, Advocate for the acquiring body.
…
AND
72 FIRST APPEAL NO. 879 OF 2007
RAMLU MALLESHU BANDIWAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...
Mr. S. V. Kurundkar, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. A. D. Wange, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. S. S. Dande, Advocate for the acquiring body.
...
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9227 OF 2026
IN FA/879/2007
RAMLU MALLESHU BANDIWAR DIED THROUGH LRS RADHABAI
AND ORS.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
NANDED AND ORS.
…
Mr. S. V. Kurundkar, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. A. D. Wange, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. S. S. Dande, Advocate for the acquiring body.
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2026
2 of 7 Sr. Nos.21 and 72
P.C.:-
1. Since the acquisition proceedings pertain to the year 1995,
the appeals are heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates
for the respective parties.
2. By the present appeals, the Appellants/Claimants are
aggrieved by the judgments and awards dated 07.04.2007 passed by
the learned C.J.S.D., Nanded in LAR Nos.121/2002 and 120/2002,
whereby the learned Reference Court refused to grant compensation to
the extent of amount claimed by the Claimants.
3. Brief facts of the present cases are as under:-
(i) The land was acquired for the purpose of Nagzari Medium
Project, Mandava Sub-minor Canal and Tail Distributory at
Kinwat, Taluka Kinwat, District Nanded.
(ii) In First Appeal No.887 of 2007, the Appellant has claimed
compensation for his acquired land to the extent of 0.40 R,
situated at Digi-Gokunda, Taluka Kinwat, District Nanded,
bearing Survey No.126, at the rate of Rs.1,75,000/- per hectare.
The learned Reference Court has granted enhanced
compensation at the rate of Rs.1,09,250/-. The Appellant has
preferred this appeal for the remaining amount claimed by the
Appellant.
(iii) In First Appeal No.879 of 2007, the Appellant has claimed
3 of 7 Sr. Nos.21 and 72
compensation for his acquired land to the extent of 0.36 R,
situated at Kinwat, District Nanded, bearing Survey No.179/1,
at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare. The learned Reference
Court has granted enhanced compensation at the rate of
Rs.1,29,950/-. The Appellant has preferred this appeal for the
remaining amount claimed by the Appellant.
(iv) The Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) were published on 10.03.1997
and 11.09.1997, respectively.
(v) The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short “SLAO”) has
granted the award on 15.03.2000.
(vi) In fact, the possession was taken on 20.04.1982. The SLAO
considered the sale instances from Kinwat and also from Digi
Gokunda and, on the basis of guesswork, determined the
compensation at Rs.95,000/- per Hectare for Group-B and
Rs.1,13,000/- per Hectare for Group-C. Being aggrieved thereby,
the Claimants sought reference under Section 18 of the Act
before the learned Reference Court. The learned Reference
Court discarded the amount claimed by the Claimants and
granted enhancement by applying 15% escalation. Hence, the
present appeals have been filed by the Claimants seeking further
enhancement.
4 of 7 Sr. Nos.21 and 72
4. Mr. Kurundkar, learned Advocate for the Appellant, submits
that the Claimants have relied upon the sale instances below Exhibits
27, 28, 29, 30 and 37, and he states that all the sale instances on which
the Claimants have relied pertain to village Kinwat and are prior to the
Section 4 Notification. He submits that though the sale instances were
duly proved, the learned Reference Court, without considering any of
the sale instances on which the Claimants have relied, enhanced the
compensation by 15% per annum as per the rate granted by the SLAO.
Therefore, he submits that the order passed by the learned Reference
Court needs to be modified.
5. Per contra, Mr. S. S. Dande, learned Advocate for the
acquiring body, and Mr. A. D. Wange, learned AGP for the State, have
submitted that in the present acquisition, the possession was taken in
the year 1982 and the land acquisition proceedings were initiated by
issuing the Notification on 10.03.1997. Therefore, the sale instances on
which the Claimants have relied upon, though from Kinwat, are within
the municipal limits and are for some agricultural lands and some
small pieces of land. The fact remains that those sale instances pertain
to lands situated within the municipal limits of Kinwat city. They
submitted that the land was acquired for the irrigation project and,
therefore, the sale instances from within the municipal limits cannot be
considered as comparable sale instances. Therefore, they submitted
5 of 7 Sr. Nos.21 and 72
that the learned Reference Court rightly refused to enhance the
compensation pursuant to the sale instances.
6. Both the learned Advocates have invited my attention to the
sale instances relied upon by the SLAO, which were prior to the Section
4 Notification, and contended that, considering the sale instances, the
SLAO has rightly determined the compensation. They further submitted
that the learned Reference Court, without assigning any reason,
granted 15% enhancement and, therefore, they submit that the order
passed by the learned Reference Court is proper.
7. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties
and with their assistance, I have gone through the copy of the record
and proceedings. I have also gone through the copies of the sale
instances below Exhibits 27, 28, 29, 30 and 37. As rightly observed by
the learned Reference Court, all the sale instances are within the
municipal limits of Kinwat city. Ultimately, the land which is acquired is
for the irrigation project and the project is more than 5 kilometres from
the Municipal Council, Kinwat. More particularly, one fact also needs to
be taken into consideration, that the possession was taken in the year
1982 and, therefore, the prevailing position in the year 1982 needs to
be taken into consideration. But the fact cannot be denied in the
present matter that the Section 4 Notification was published on
10.03.1997 and the SLAO has also collected the sale instances from the
6 of 7 Sr. Nos.21 and 72
years 1992 to 1997 from Kinwat as well as village Digi Gokunda. As far
as the sale instances from Kinwat are concerned, as those are within
the municipal limits, this Court is not inclined to consider those sale
instances, as those are from the Municipal Council. But the fact is that
even the sale instance on which the SLAO relied is from village Digi
Gokunda. As far as village Digi Gokunda is concerned, one sale
instance is of the year 1996 and the rate was scrutinized by the SLAO,
i.e. Rs.1,53,036/-, and the sale instance is dated 01.03.1996. It should
be rounded off to Rs.1,53,000/-. Admittedly, the sale instance was
relied upon and considered by the learned Reference Court, and that
was from the acquired village. Therefore, I find that the same can be
considered as a comparable sale instance for determining the market
value. Therefore, considering the above facts, as the sale instance dated
01.03.1996 and Section 4 Notification came to be published on
10.03.1997, I am inclined to consider the said sale instance and
determine the market value. Hence, I proceed to pass the following
order:-
ORDER
(i) The present appeals are partly allowed.
(ii) The judgments and awards dated 07.04.2007 passed by
the learned C.J.S.D., Nanded in LAR Nos.121/2002 and
120/2002 are modified to the extent that the Claimants
7 of 7 Sr. Nos.21 and 72
are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of
Rs.1,53,000/- per hectare for their acquired land.
(iii) The Claimants shall be entitled to receive all statutory
benefits including interest under Sections 28 and 34 of
the Act from the date of the award, as per the law laid
down by the Full Bench of this Court in State of
Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari, reported in
2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457.
(iv) The rest of the award passed by the learned Reference
Court remains unaltered.
(v) Award be drawn accordingly.
(vi) Pending civil applications, if any, are also disposed of.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Tauseef
Checking your session…