Bombay High Court
STATE OF MAHAversusNALINIBAI NARHAR PATIL
- Disposal
- Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
- Bench
- SANJAY A DESHMUKH
Holding
The court allowed the condonation of delay but dismissed the first appeals, affirming the compensation awarded by the Land Reference Court.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed applications seeking condonation of a 28‑day delay in filing first appeals against a 2001 judgment of the Jalgaon Land Reference Court concerning acquisition of land for a percolation tank. The appeals challenged the compensation awarded to the claimants, alleging that the amounts were excessive and not based on proper appreciation of evidence. The respondents argued that the land was seasonally irrigated and that the market value was correctly determined using a sale exemplar predating the acquisition notification. The High Court examined the evidence, including the sale exemplar and the seasonal irrigation status, and found the Reference Court’s assessment to be legally sound. Consequently, the court allowed the condonation applications but dismissed the first appeals, upholding the compensation awards.
Issues considered
- Whether the 28‑day delay in filing the first appeals should be condoned.
- Whether the compensation awarded by the Land Reference Court is excessive and contrary to the evidence.
- Whether the market value assessment based on the sale exemplar is proper.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- condonation of delay
- percolation tank
- market value
- seasonally irrigated land
- Land Reference Court
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:24058
ca9459.09
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
903 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9459 OF 2009
IN/WITH
REJECTED CASE NO. 1636 OF 2003
State of Maharashtra
VERSUS
Gulabrao Narayan Patil
…..
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9461 OF 2009
IN/WITH
REJECTED CASE NO. 1637 OF 2003
State of Maharashtra
VERSUS
Nalinibai Narhar Patil
…..
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. K.N. Lokhande
Advocate for Respondents : Mr. C.K. Shinde
…..
CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATED : 17th JUNE, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. These applications are filed for condonation of delay of 28
days caused in filing the first appeals. Perused the applications.
Heard learned A.G.P. for the applicants and learned advocate for the
respondents. Learned advocate for the respondents strongly
opposed the applications and prayed to reject the applications, as
there is no sufficient cause shown to condone the delay.
2. On perusal of the applications and the grounds stated
ca9459.09
-2-
therein, the applications deserve to be allowed. The applications are
accordingly allowed.
3. In so far as the first appeals are concerned, issue notice to
the respondents. Learned advocate Mr. Shinde, waives notice for the
respondents. With consent of learned advocates for both the sides,
the appeals are taken up for final disposal.
4. The first appeals are preferred against the common
judgment and award dated 05.02.2001 passed by the learned Land
Reference Court, Jalgaon in L.A.R. Nos. 305 of 2000 and 307 of
2000.
5. The land of the claimant in L.A.R. No. 305 of 2000 bearing
block No. 75(1) admeasuring 1 H 1 Are and 0.33 R barren land and
the land of the claimant in L.A.R. No. 307 of 2000 bearing block No.
75(1) admeasuring 0.74 Are and 0.6 Are Potkharaba, situated at
village Taloda, Tq. Chalisgaon, district Jalgaon, were acquired for the
purpose of construction of percolation tank at village Taloda, Tq.
Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon, as per the notification issued under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 04.07.1996.
6. Learned A.G.P. for the appellants pointed out that
ca9459.09
-3-
compensation amounting to Rs.78,260/- in L.A.R. No. 305 of 2000
and Rs.58,237/- in L.A.R. No. 307 of 2000, including interest,
solatium, etc., had already been awarded by the L.A.O. However, the
learned Reference Court awarded compensation @ Rs.1,30,000/-
per hectare and, for 0.33 Are of barren land, compensation @
Rs.650/- per Are was awarded. He submitted that the evidence was
not properly appreciated. According to him, a huge amount of
compensation has been awarded to the claimants, which is not in
accordance with the evidence on record. He, therefore, prayed that
the appeals be allowed and the impugned judgment and award be
set aside.
7. Learned advocate for the respondents-claimants opposed
the appeals and submitted that the evidence adduced by the
claimants was properly appreciated by the learned Reference Court,
which awarded a reasonable amount of compensation in accordance
with the market value of the acquired lands. He further submitted that
the claimants' lands were seasonally irrigated, a fact which was not
considered by the learned L.A.O. Therefore, the compensation
awarded by the learned Reference Court is just and reasonable, and
no interference is warranted in the impugned judgments and awards.
8. On perusal of the impugned judgment and award alongwith
ca9459.09
-4-
the record and proceedings, this Court found that there is evidence
that the claimants’ lands are seasonally irrigated lands, having high
potentiality. This can be seen from 7x12 extract. The conclusion
drawn by the learned Reference Court on the basis of the
documentary evidence is legal and correct, and no interference is
warranted. The evidence is properly appreciated and the market
value is drawn on the basis of Exh.16, the sale exemplar of block No.
224 which is at a distance of 2/3 fields from the said land. The said
sale exemplar was executed on 10.04.1996 which is three months
prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, dated
04.07.1996. Thus, there is acceptable evidence of sale exemplar on
record.
9. In the light of above, no interference is warranted in the
impugned judgment and award. The appeals therefore, deserve to
be dismissed and they are accordingly dismissed.
(SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.)
rlj/
Checking your session…