Bombay High Court

THE STATE OF MAHA. THROUGH COLLECTOR, OSMANABADversusUTTAM VISHWAMBAR DESHMUKH and ANOTHER

Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The Reference Court’s reliance on the 02‑07‑1982 sale deed as a comparable, with appropriate adjustments, was reasonable and did not constitute an error.

Summary

The State of Maharashtra appealed against judgments that awarded compensation for lands acquired for the Ruibhar Medium Project, contending that the lower court had improperly relied on a sale deed dated 02‑07‑1982 for determining market value. The sale deed concerned land within Osmanabad municipal limits, whereas the acquired lands lay outside the city and were irrigated agricultural plots. The State argued that the deed was not a comparable sale and that the compensation awarded (Rs 1,000 per R) was excessive compared to the Special Land Acquisition Officer’s award (Rs 122‑185 per R). The High Court noted the absence of any contemporaneous comparable sales from the villages concerned and held that, given the scarcity of evidence, the lower court’s reliance on the 1982 sale deed with appropriate adjustments was reasonable. It further emphasized the protective purpose of the Land Acquisition Act and the reluctance of landowners to sell irrigated land at low prices. Consequently, the Court found no error in the earlier judgments and dismissed the appeals.

Issues considered

Whether the sale deed dated 02‑07‑1982, relating to land within municipal limits, is a proper comparable for assessing market value of the acquired irrigated agricultural lands outside the municipal limits.
Whether the compensation awarded by the Reference Court, based on that sale deed, is excessive or unsustainable under the Land Acquisition Act.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act — s. 4, 6

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation
market value
comparable sale
Section 4
Section 6
Ruibhar Medium Project
irrigated land

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:31224
1 of 5 Sr. Nos.912, 913 & 45

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

912 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1044 OF 2007

THE STATE OF MAHA. THROUGH COLLECTOR, OSMANABAD
VERSUS
UTTAM VISHWAMBAR DESHMUKH AND ANOTHER
...
Mr. A.A.A. Khan, AGP for the Appellant-State.
Mr. Vitthal Gena Mete, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 is Absent.
...

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1045 OF 2007

THE STATE OF MAHA. THROUGH COLLEOCTOR, O`BAD
VERSUS
VISHWANATH BHAIRU KASAPATE
…
Mr. A.A.A. Khan, AGP for the Appellant-State.
Mr. Vitthal Gena Mete, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 is Absent.
…
AND
913 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1051 OF 2007

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRO.COLLECTOR.
VERSUS
SADHU BAJI PAWAR (L.RS.) SHABAI AND OTHERS.
...
Mr. A. D. Wange, AGP for the Appellant-State.
Mr. N. P. Jamalpurkar Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1a to 1d is
Absent.
…
AND
45 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1159 OF 2007

THE STATE OF MAHA THROUGH COLLECTOR,OSMANABAD
VERSUS
VILAS MAHADEOAPPA GARDE
...
Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for the Appellant-State.
Mr. V. G. Mete, Advocate for Respondent is Absent.
...
2 of 5 Sr. Nos.912, 913 & 45

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 22nd JULY, 2026

P.C.:-

1. Since the acquisition proceedings pertain to the year 1982

and 1985, the appeals are heard finally with the consent of the learned

AGPs for the State.

2. By the present appeals, the Appellants-State is aggrieved by

the judgments and awards dated 30.03.1994, 29.04.1994, 30.03.1994

and 30.03.1994, passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division,

Osmanabad in LAR Nos.658/1991, 342/1990, 661/1991 and

667/1991.

3. In all these appeals, the lands of the Claimants were acquired

for the Ruibhar Medium Project. For the said project, lands situated in

different villages were acquired and, consequently, different

notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be

issued. However, since the acquisition pertains to the same project, all

these appeals are taken up for hearing together. The relevant

particulars are as follows:

Sr. First Appeal Notification Notification under SLAO has awarded
No. No. under Section 4 Section 6 dated compensation on
dated
1 FA.1044.2007 02.12.1982 16.10.1985 26.11.1987
2 FA.1051.2007 31.12.1985 - 31.12.1987
3 FA.1045.2007 02.12.1982 16.10.1985 26.11.1987
4 FA.1159.2007 02.12.1982 27.06.1985 26.11.1987
3 of 5 Sr. Nos.912, 913 & 45

4. Mr. A.A.A. Khan, Mr. D.R. Korde and Mr. A.D. Wange, learned

AGPs appearing for the Appellant–State, vehemently submitted that the

learned Reference Court erred in relying upon the sale deed dated

02.07.1982. According to them, the said sale instance pertains to land

situated within or adjacent to the municipal limits of Osmanabad city,

whereas the acquired lands are situated outside the municipal limits

and at a considerable distance from the city. Therefore, the said sale

instance could not have been treated as a comparable sale instance.

They further submitted that separate compensation had already been

awarded for the well and pipeline. It is also submitted that the Special

Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation ranging from

Rs.122/- to Rs.185/- per R, whereas the learned Reference Court,

relying upon the sale deed dated 02.07.1982, enhanced the

compensation to Rs.1,000/- per R in some references and Rs.875/- per

R in others. According to the learned AGPs, the enhancement granted

by the Reference Court is excessive and unsustainable.

5. Mr. Khan, learned AGP, lastly submitted that the land covered

by the sale deed dated 02.07.1982 was situated adjacent to the MIDC

area and, therefore, commanded a higher market value. According to

him, the learned Reference Court ought not to have relied upon the

said sale instance. However, no other contemporaneous sale instance

from the vicinity of the acquired lands was brought on record. Though
4 of 5 Sr. Nos.912, 913 & 45

an attempt was made to point out certain other sale instances, those

transactions had taken place nearly six years after the publication of

the notification under Section 4 and, therefore, they could not have

been treated as comparable sale instances. In the absence of any better

contemporaneous evidence, I find no error in the approach adopted by

the learned Reference Court in relying upon the sale deed dated

02.07.1982.

6. Though served, none appears for the Respondents.

7. I have heard the learned AGPs for the Appellant–State. With

their assistance, I have carefully gone through the record and

proceedings as well as the map showing the location of the project.

There is no dispute that, for the Ruibhar Medium Project, lands from

adjoining villages such as Paraswadi, Devlai and other villages were

acquired by issuing different notifications under Section 4, since the

acquisition was undertaken in phases.

8. It is also required to be borne in mind that the acquisition

proceedings commenced in the year 1982. At the relevant time,

landowners were generally reluctant to sell their agricultural lands,

particularly when acquisition proceedings had already commenced.

Consequently, comparable sale instances from the same village or

adjoining villages were not readily available. In such circumstances, the

Claimants relied upon the sale deed dated 02.07.1982, relating to land
5 of 5 Sr. Nos.912, 913 & 45

situated within the municipal limits. Considering the absence of any

better comparable sale instance, the learned Reference Court relied

upon the said sale deed after making appropriate adjustments.

9. It is further evident that the acquired lands were irrigated

lands. It is a matter of common experience that landowners were

reluctant to part with their irrigated agricultural lands for public

purposes, particularly when the compensation initially offered was

meagre. Since the Land Acquisition Act is a beneficial legislation

intended to ensure payment of just and fair compensation, I find that

the learned Reference Court was justified in placing reliance upon the

sale deed dated 02.07.1982.

10. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the

learned Reference Court has adopted a reasonable and well-considered

approach while determining the market value of the acquired lands. I

do not find any perversity, illegality or infirmity in the impugned

judgments and awards warranting interference in these appeals.

11. Hence, the appeals stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

Tauseef

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…