THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUG THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR.versusSHRI.NIMBA KONDAJI RUPWATE AND ORS.

                                                                           56-FA-661-26+F.doc



                                                                                   Sayali


                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SAYALI                              FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 27909 OF 2016
DEEPAK
UPASANI                                              WITH
Digitally signed by
SAYALI DEEPAK
UPASANI                              CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 967 of 2017
Date: 2026.07.07
16:55:23 +0530
                                                     WITH
                                     CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 968 of 2017

                      The State of Maharashtra thr. The
                      Special Land Acquisition Officer and
                      Others                                       … Applicant-Appellant
                                V/s.
                      Nimba Kondaji Rupwate and Others             … Respondents

                      Mr. A. R. Patil, Additional GP, for Appellant-
                      Applicant.


                                                  CORAM      : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                  DATED      : JULY 07, 2026

                      P.C.:

                      1.      The Special Land Acquisition Officer issued a notification
                      under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquiring
                      the land of the Respondents. Original Claimants situated at
                      village Ghoti (Budruk), Taluka Igatpuri, District Nashik. The
                      acquisition was made for construction of the Ghoti. Sinnar Road.




                                                       1
                                                    56-FA-661-26+F.doc


2.   After that, on 10th June, 2002, the Special Land
Acquisition Officer passed the Award under Section 11 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and fixed the compensation payable
for the acquired land. The Respondents. Original Claimants were
not satisfied with the compensation and therefore filed a
reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
They claimed that they should get compensation at the rate of
Rs.200 per square metre. On 18th December, 2013, the learned
3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nashik, decided the
reference and passed the Judgment and Award. The Reference
Court granted enhanced compensation of Rs.2,48,270/-, along
with statutory benefits under Sections 23(1A) and 23(2) of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in favour of the Respondents.
Original Claimants. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and
Award, the present Appeal has been filed.

3.   From the Award, it appears that the Special Land
Acquisition Officer fixed the market value of land bearing Gat
No.18/15, admeasuring 40 Ares, at Rs.30,930/-. However, the
Reference Court determined the market value of the said land
under   Section   23(1)   of   the   Land   Acquisition    Act     at
Rs.1,27,095/-. Because of this, the compensation was enhanced
by Rs.96,165/-. After adding the statutory amount under
Sections 23(1A) and 23(2), along with the other admissible
benefits, the total amount payable comes to Rs.2,48,708/-.

4.   After going through the impugned Judgment passed by the
Reference Court, it appears that the Reference Court has


                                2
                                                     56-FA-661-26+F.doc


considered the sale instances of nearby lands which were found
to be comparable in nature. It also appears that the Court has
taken into account the advantages and disadvantages of those
lands before comparing them with the acquired land. The
material and documents produced by the claimant were also
considered. Nothing is seen to show that the Reference Court
ignored any relevant material while deciding the market value.
It further appears that the Reference Court has kept in mind the
principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of
Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Poona & Another, (1988) 3 SCC 751 : AIR 1988 SC 1652 . Those
principles require the Court to examine comparable sale
instances carefully and then arrive at a fair market value after
considering all relevant circumstances. Prima facie, it appears
that the Reference Court has followed those parameters while
assessing the compensation.

5.    On careful reading of the reasons recorded by the
Reference Court in paragraph nos. 17 to 21, it appears that each
circumstance has been discussed before arriving at the final
conclusion. The Reference Court has considered the evidence
placed by the parties, the comparable sale transactions and the
nature of the acquired land. The reasoning does not appear to
be arbitrary or without basis. Though another view may also be
possible in some cases, that itself cannot be a ground to interfere
when the findings are supported by the material available on
record. Therefore, in my opinion, the Reference Court appears to



                                 3
                                                      56-FA-661-26+F.doc


have rightly reached the conclusion that the claimant was
entitled to enhancement of compensation to the extent of
Rs.1,66,165/-. The statutory benefits payable under the Land
Acquisition Act were also rightly granted along with the
enhanced compensation.

6.    In view of the above discussion, I do not find that the
impugned Judgment suffers from any legal or factual error
which requires interference by this Court in the present Appeal.
The findings recorded by the Reference Court appear to be
based on proper appreciation of the evidence and the settled
principles governing determination of market value. No
sufficient ground has been shown by the Appellant for taking a
different view. Therefore, the present Appeal does not deserve to
be entertained. As a result, the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.

7.    The First Appeal is therefore dismissed.

8.    The Civil Application No. 967 of 2017 and Civil
Application No. 968 of 2017 also stand disposed of.



                                           (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                                 4