Bombay High Court
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORSversusVIKAS RAMLING CHAVAN AND ANR
- Disposal
- Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
Holding
The appeal is partly allowed; the compensation enhancement stands, but interest under Section 34 must be calculated from the date of award.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed a judgment of the Reference Court that enhanced compensation for land acquired for the Surdi‑Begda Percolation Tank from Rs.80 per R to Rs.846 per R, relying on sale instances from an adjacent village. The State contended that the Special Land Acquisition Officer’s award was adequate and that the comparative sales were not comparable, while the claimants argued the award was grossly inadequate and that the comparative sales were appropriate. The Court examined whether the Reference Court erred in its valuation methodology and in granting statutory interest under Section 34 from the date of notification. It held that the Reference Court was justified in using comparable sales from the adjacent village and that no perversity existed in the enhanced compensation. However, the Court found that interest under Section 34 must be calculated from the date of award, following State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed: the interest clause was modified, and the remainder of the award was left untouched.
Issues considered
- Whether the Reference Court erred in enhancing compensation for the acquired land by relying on sale instances from an adjacent village.
- Whether statutory interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 should be calculated from the date of notification or from the date of award.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 34, 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- market value
- statutory interest
- Section 34
- reference court
- percolation tank
- rental compensation
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:26541
1 of 5 955-CA.9304.2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
955 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9304 OF 2017
IN FAST/16628/2017
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
VERSUS
VIKAS RAMLING CHAVAN AND ANR
...
Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for Applicants-State.
Ms. Rekha Mohale (Choudhary) h/f. Ms. S. S. Choudhary, Advocate for
Respondent No.2.
...
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9305 OF 2017
IN FAST/16628/2017
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
VERSUS
VIKAS RAMLING CHAVAN AND ANR
…
Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for Applicants-State.
Ms. Rekha Mohale (Choudhary) h/f. Ms. S. S. Choudhary, Advocate for
Respondent No.2.
…
AND
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.16628 OF 2017
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
VERSUS
VIKAS RAMLING CHAVAN AND ANR
…
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 2nd JULY, 2026
P.C.:-
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9304 OF 2017:-
1. By this application, the Applicants are seeking condonation
Tauseef
2 of 5 955-CA.9304.2017
of delay of 1164 days in filing first appeal.
2. Considering the averments made in the application, the
application is allowed.
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.16628 OF 2017:-
3. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. By
consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the
admission stage.
4. By the present appeal, the Appellant–State is aggrieved by
the judgment and award dated 28.11.2013 passed by the learned Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad in L.A.R. No.574 of 1991, whereby
the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation.
5. Learned AGP for the Appellant–State submits that the Special
Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) awarded compensation at the rate of
Rs.80/- per R. However, the learned Reference Court enhanced the
market value to Rs.846/- per R. He submits that land bearing Gat
No.118/2, admeasuring 2 Hectares and 44 R, situated at Begda,
Osmanabad was acquired for the construction of the Surdi–Begda
Percolation Tank and that the compensation awarded by the SLAO was
just and adequate. He further submits that the sale instances below
Exhibits-15 and 17 relied upon by the learned Reference Court pertain
to a different village and that the quality and potential of the lands
covered by those sale instances are not comparable with the acquired
Tauseef
3 of 5 955-CA.9304.2017
land. Therefore, according to him, the learned Reference Court has
awarded exorbitant compensation.
6. Per contra, Ms. S. S. Choudhary, learned Advocate for
Respondent No.2–Claimant, supports the impugned judgment and
award. She submits that the SLAO awarded grossly inadequate
compensation. According to her, the sale instances Exhibits-15 and 17
relied upon by the learned Reference Court relate to lands of similar
quality situated in an adjacent village. Since the notification under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on
02.06.1988 and the comparable sale instance of the adjacent village
was of the year 1986, the learned Reference Court rightly relied upon
the said sale instance while determining the market value.
7. Learned Advocate for the Respondents–Claimants further
submits that possession of the acquired land was taken on 24.03.1987.
However, despite being entitled to the rental compensation in
accordance with law, the Claimants have not received the same.
8. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties
and perused the judgment and award passed by the learned Reference
Court. It is an admitted position that the notification under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 02.06.1988. The
SLAO awarded compensation at the rate of only Rs.80/- per R. It is
quite possible that, at the relevant time, no comparable sale instances
Tauseef
4 of 5 955-CA.9304.2017
from the same village were available. In such circumstances, the SLAO
was not precluded from considering comparable sale instances from an
adjacent village. However, that exercise was not undertaken. The
learned Reference Court has, therefore, rightly relied upon the sale
instances at Exhibits-15 and 17 pertaining to the year 1986, which is
prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 and relates to
land of comparable nature. I, therefore, find no perversity or illegality
in the impugned judgment and award with respect to compensation
part. But, the learned Reference Court has granted interest under
Section 34 from the date of notification under Section 4, which is
contrary to the law laid down in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva
Rangari, reported in 2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457 . Hence, to that extent,
I am inclined to modify the impugned award. Therefore, I
proceed to pass following order:-
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The statutory interest payable under Section 34 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall be calculated from the
date of award in accordance with the law laid down by
the Full Bench of this Court in Kailash Shiva Rangari
(supra) and to that extent, clause (iv) of the
operative part of the award passed by the learned
Tauseef
5 of 5 955-CA.9304.2017
Reference Court stands modified.
(iii) Rest of the order passed by the learned Reference Court
stands unaltered.
(iv) The Respondents–Claimants are at liberty to file an
appropriate application before the Collector, Dharashiv,
seeking rental compensation payable to them. If such an
application is filed, the Collector, Dharashiv shall
consider and decide the same in accordance with the
applicable Government policy within a period of ten
weeks from the date of its receipt.
(v) Pending civil applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Tauseef
Checking your session…