Bombay High Court

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHERversusKUNDLIK GYANBA (DIED) CPS (1) AND ANOTHER

Disposal: Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

Holding

The appeal is dismissed; the reference court’s enhancement of compensation to Rs.1,400 per rood is upheld.

Summary

The State of Maharashtra appealed a judgment of the Ad‑hoc District Judge‑2, Ambajogai, which had enhanced compensation for land acquired for a percolation tank. The land, 1 hectare 47 roods, was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act with a notification in 1996 and an award in 1999 at Rs.245 per rood. The claimants, dissatisfied with this amount, filed a reference under Section 18 of the Act, and the reference court, relying on comparable sale instances, raised the compensation to Rs.1,400 per rood. The State contended that this enhancement was excessive. The High Court examined the reference court’s valuation, found that the sale comparables justified the Rs.1,400 rate, and concluded that no exorbitant compensation was awarded. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the reference court’s award upheld.

Issues considered

Whether the reference court erred in enhancing compensation to Rs.1,400 per rood for the acquired Jirayat land.
Whether the enhanced compensation amount is excessive or contrary to the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act — s. 11, 18, 4

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation enhancement
Section 18
valuation of land
reference court
percolation tank

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:46544

                                                                             CA 9589/14
                                                  1

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               6 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9589 OF 2014
                                         IN FAST/17970/2014

                            THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
                                               VERSUS
                           KUNDLIK GYANBA (DIED) CPS (1) AND ANOTHER
                                                  ...
                            AGP for Applicants/State : Mr. S.N. Morampalle
                                                  ...
                                                WITH
                               CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9588 OF 2014
                                         IN FAST/17970/2014
                                                  …

                                 CORAM        : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                 Dated        : September 30, 2026

            PER COURT :-

            1.    In civil application filed for condonation of delay, heard the learned

            AGP for the State/appellant. For the averments made in the application, the

            application is allowed. Delay is condoned.

            2.    As the acquisition proceeding is initiated in the year 1996, heard

            finally with the consent of learned AGP for State. None appears for

            respondents.

            3.    By this appeal, the appellants/State assails the judgment and award

            dated 28.4.2009 passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge-2, Ambajogai in LAR

            No. 56/2004 whereby the learned reference court has enhanced the

            compensation amount determined by the SLAO.

            4.    The land of the claimants admeasuring 1 H. 47 R. land from Survey

            Nos. 51/5 and 384 situated at village Jirewadi was acquired for construction

            of percolation tank at village Jirewadi. Notification under section 4 of the

            Land Acquisition Act came to be published on 21.3.1996. The award under
                                                                 CA 9589/14
                                      2

section 11 of the Act came to be published on 20.3.1999. The learned

Special Land Acquisition officer has awarded compensation at the rate of

Rs.245/- per R. The claimants after accepting the amount under protest,

filed reference under section 18 of the Act for enhancement. Before the

reference court, the claimants relied upon the sale instances, Exh. 17 to 19.

After considering the sale instances, the learned reference court enhanced

compensation at the rate of Rs.1400/- per R. for Jirayat land.

5.     Having heard the learned AGP, with his assistance, I have gone

through the record and proceedings and the impugned judgment and award

of the reference court. On perusal of the same, it appears that the reference

court has relied upon the sale instances, Exhs. 17 to 19 and recorded

finding that as per the sale instances rate comes to Rs. 3600/-, Rs. 5406/-

and Rs.3846/- and those are to be considered as comparable sale instances

and as the acquired land is Jirayat land, the learned reference court has

determined the market value of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 1400/-

per R. Therefore, this court is of the view that the reference court has not

granted any exorbitant or excessive compensation. Hence, no case is made

out by the State for interference. The present appeal is devoid of merits and

therefore, the same is dismissed. Pending civil applications, if any, stand

disposed of.



                                          ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )

ssc/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…