Bombay High Court
VENKAT SAMBHAJI PATILversusSTATE OF MAH THR COLLECTOR LATUR and ANR
- Disposal
- Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
- Bench
- SANJAY A DESHMUKH
Holding
The appeals are allowed; compensation is fixed at Rs.5 per square foot with statutory benefits and an additional Rs.5,000 for the well, and no interest is awarded.
Summary
The appellants, owners of lands acquired in 1994 for the resettlement of earthquake‑affected villagers, challenged the Land Acquisition Reference Court's award of Rs.400 per rupee and sought enhanced compensation on the principle of parity with similar cases. They argued that their lands possessed non‑agricultural (N.A.) potentiality and that a compensation rate of Rs.5 per square foot, as awarded in earlier judgments, should apply, along with a Rs.5,000 payment for a well on the land. The respondents contended that the award was based on market value at the time of acquisition and that a 40% deduction for development charges was appropriate, rejecting the parity argument. The Court examined the precedent cases, noted that lands acquired for rehabilitation inherently have N.A. potentiality, and held that the principle of equality under Articles 14 and 15 mandates parity with neighboring villages. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, set compensation at Rs.5 per square foot with statutory benefits and a Rs.5,000 award for the well, and denied interest for the delayed period.
Issues considered
- Whether the principle of parity applies to the compensation for lands acquired in 1994 for rehabilitation purposes.
- Whether the acquired lands possess non‑agricultural (N.A.) potentiality justifying a per‑square‑foot compensation rate.
- Whether a 40% deduction for development charges should be applied to the compensation.
- Whether compensation is payable for the well present on the land.
- Whether interest is payable for the period of delay in payment of compensation.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- principle of parity
- non‑agricultural potential
- development charges
- interest
- solatium
- well compensation
- constitutional equality
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:26724
1 4 n 68 FA.1100.2005 ANR.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
4 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1100 OF 2005
VENKAT S/O SAMBHAJI PATIL
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,
COLLECTOR, LATUR, DISTRICT LATUR AND ANOTHER
...
Mr. B. N. Patil & Mr. Sunil Magare, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. V. M. Lomte, AGP for Respondents.
…
AND
68 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1139 OF 2005
SHIVAJI MADHAVRAO PATIL AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA,
COLLECTOR, LATUR, DISTRICT LATUR AND ANOTHER
...
Mr. B. N. Patil & Mr. Sunil Magre, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. S. G. Sangle, Additional GP for Respondents.
…
CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 22nd June, 2026.
Per Court:
1 These two appeals have been preferred by the claimants
for enhancement of compensation against the common judgment and
award dated 30th June, 2005, passed by the learned Land Reference
Court, District Latur, as shown in the following chart:-
Sr. No. First Appeal No. LAR No. Survey No. Area of Land
1 1100 of 2005 552 of 1995 88 / 2 03 H 08 R
2 1139 of 2005 467 of 1995 88 / 2 02 H 10 R
2 4 n 68 FA.1100.2005 ANR.odt
2 The claimants’ lands were acquired for the purpose of the
resettlement of village Jawalga Pomadevi, Taluka Ausa, District Latur,
as per the notification issued and published under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the L.A. Act”), dated 28th
September, 1994. The Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “the LAO”)
passed the final award on 30th October, 1994 and awarded
compensation @ Rs.195/- per R. The learned Reference Court
enhanced and awarded compensation @ Rs.400/- per R, holding that
the claimants’ lands were non-irrigated.
3 The learned Advocate for the claimants pointed out the
pleadings, the evidence, the grounds of objections in the appeals and
the reasons and findings in the impugned judgment.
4 The learned Advocate for the claimants further pointed out
the judgments of this Court dated 22nd October, 2021 passed in First
Appeal No.2614 of 2010 (Dagadu Vithal Jahdav Vs. State of
Maharashtra and another) and the judgment dated 24th September,
2025 passed in First Appeal No.766 of 2013 (Manohar Kedari
Sawant Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another) and submitted
to award the compensation on the principle of parity to the claimants
@ Rs.5/- per sq.ft., holding that the claimants’ lands are having N.A.
potentiality, as held by this Court in First Appeal No.2614 of 2010, as
3 4 n 68 FA.1100.2005 ANR.odt
the land in the said appeal and the present appeals were acquired for
one and same purpose of rehabilitation and resettlement of villages
affected by the 1993 earthquake. He further pointed out the judgment
of this Court in First Appeal No.766 of 2013 (supra), by which this
Court awarded compensation to a similarly situated claimant @
Rs.20/- per sq.ft. He, therefore, prayed to award the compensation
accordingly. He lastly prayed to allow the appeals filed by the
claimants by enhancing the amount of compensation.
5 The learned Advocate for the claimants relied upon the
judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Ambya
Kalya Mhatre (D) through legal heirs and Ors. Vs. The State of
Maharashtra, MANU/SC/1068/2011, in which it is held that the
claimant is entitled to compensation for trees as well as vacant land.
6 Both the learned AGPs for the respondents strongly
opposed the appeals and submitted that a reasonable amount of
compensation as per the market value of the acquired lands on the
date of the notification was rightly determined and awarded by the
learned Reference Court, as per the evidence on record. They pointed
out paragraph Nos.19 and 20 of the impugned judgment and submitted
that the reasons in the impugned judgment are acceptable and that no
interference is warranted in it.
4 4 n 68 FA.1100.2005 ANR.odt
7 The learned AGPs submitted that as per both the
judgments, the acquired lands were situated in different villages. In
First Appeal No.2614 of 2010, the land was acquired as per the
notification issued and published under Section 4 of the L.A. Act on
28th May, 1998. Therefore, the principle of parity cannot be applied to
the case of the present claimants, as their lands were acquired as per
the notification issued and published under Section 4 of the L.A. Act on
28th September, 1994. They submitted that the lands are of different
quality and the claimants have not established the N.A. potentiality of
their lands. They pointed out that while deciding First Appeal No.2614
of 2010, compensation to the extent of 40% was deducted and only
60% of the amount of the sale exemplar was awarded. The same
deduction is required in the present appeals as well. Therefore, the
claimants cannot claim compensation on the principle of parity. They
lastly prayed to dismiss the appeals.
8 Perused the evidence and impugned judgment alongwith
the judgments in First Appeal No.2614 of 2010 (supra) and First
Appeal No.766 of 2013 (supra). By the said judgments, the
compensation was determined on the square foot basis holding that
the claimants’ lands therein had N.A. potentiality. The lands of the
present claimants were admittedly acquired for the purpose of
5 4 n 68 FA.1100.2005 ANR.odt
rehabilitation of villagers affected by the 1993 earthquake. When the
lands are acquired for the resettlement of a village, those lands
certainly have N.A. potentiality. Those lands are to be used for N.A.
purposes.
9 The claimants in the neighbouring village whose lands
were acquired for same purpose were awarded compensation @
Rs.20/- per sq.ft in First Appeal No.766 of 2013, and the claimant in
First Appeal No.2614 of 2010 was awarded compensation @ Rs.5/-
per sq.ft. In the judgment passed in First Appeal No.2614 of 2010, it
was clarified that while awarding the compensation @ Rs.5/- per sq.ft.
by the judgment in LAR No.851 of 2000, which was relied upon, and
after deduction, compensation was awarded accordingly.
10 As far as deduction is concerned, this Court, in the
judgment delivered in First Appeal No.2614 of 2010, in paragraph No.4
observed as follows:-
“Both the lands along with other lands have been acquired for
the purpose of rehabilitation of earthquake affected persons.
The only difference between the two is that the land, subject
matter of Land Acquisition Reference No.851/2000 has been
acquired under the land acquisition proceedings, the notification
under Section 4 whereof was published in October 1995. The
appellant herein also claimed before the Reference Court that
his land had N.A. potential. The Reference Court, in Land
6 4 n 68 FA.1100.2005 ANR.odt
Acquisition Reference No.851/2000, enhanced the
compensation to Rs.5/- per sq.ft. after deducting 40% of the
acquired land towards development charges. In short, the
compensation @ Rs.5/- per sq.ft. has been awarded to the
extent of 60% of the land as against the entire land. Since the
land of the appellant herein has been acquired for the very
purpose from the very village, he needs to be granted
compensation at par with the one granted in Land Acquisition
Reference No.851/2000. This Court is, however, not inclined to
grant 10% hike for each year on account of the land, subject
matter of the present appeal, to have been acquired two and
half years after the one which was subject matter of Land
Acquisition Reference No.851/2000. There is prima facie
nothing to indicate that price of the land gets enhanced by 10%
every year. The Court may take judicial notice of the present
scenario, wherein prices of the lands are static for some period
of 2 - 3 years.”
11 These observations show escalation in price of land @
10% for two and a half years was not granted, considering the static in
the price of the land, which covers the period of 1994, the year of
notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act.
12 This Court has already held that the claimants’ lands had
N.A. potentiality, as the lands were acquired for the purpose of
rehabilitation of villagers from the same vicinity. By the judgment in
First Appeal No.2614 of 2010, this Court awarded compensation @
Rs.5/- per sq.ft. No doubt, the notification under Section 4 of the L.A.
7 4 n 68 FA.1100.2005 ANR.odt
Act in that appeal was issued and published on 28 th May, 1998,
whereas the notification under Section 4 in the present appeals was
issued and published on 28th September, 1994. There is approximately
a difference of four years between the two notifications. However,
considering the fact that the villages are neighbouring villages and the
principle of equality in Constitution in Articles 14 and 15 of the
Constitution of India that equals should be treated equally, the
claimants are certainly entitled to compensation @ Rs.5/- per sq.ft. on
the principle of parity. Considering peculiar set of facts of this case, no
any deduction is justified in this case on any count when principle of
parity is to be invoked.
13 The 7/12 extracts at Exhibits 16 and 17 show the
existence of a Sarkari Gadi Marg (Government Road) and also show
that there is a well in both the lands. No compensation was awarded
for the mango trees, as no specific number of mango trees is stated in
the oral evidence. The 7/12 extracts also do not corroborate the same.
14 There is oral evidence of claimant corroborated by the
7/12 extract at Exhibit-17, which shows that there is a well for which no
compensation was awarded. The claimants in First Appeal No.1139 of
2005 are, therefore, entitled to compensation of Rs.5,000/- for a well.
8 4 n 68 FA.1100.2005 ANR.odt
15 The reasons and findings of the learned Reference Court
are not legal and correct. Therefore, interference is warranted in the
impugned judgment and award. The first appeals deserve to be
allowed. The impugned judgment and award deserves to be partly set
aside and modified. Hence, the following order:-
ORDER
I. The first appeals are allowed.
II. The impugned judgment and award are partly set
aside and modified as under:-
a) The claimants are entitled to the compensation
@ Rs.5/- per sq.ft., including earlier amount
paid to the claimants for the acquired lands,
with all other statutory benefits i.e. additional
component, interest and solatium as per the
provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
b) The claimants in First Appeal No.1139 of 2005
are further entitled to compensation of
Rs.5000/- for well.
c) Rest of the judgment and award is confirmed.
III. The claimants in both appeals are not entitled to
interest for the delayed period, if condoned by this
Court.
IV. The enhanced amount of compensation with
9 4 n 68 FA.1100.2005 ANR.odt
statutory interest etc. shall be deposited in this
Court within a period of six months from today.
V. The claimants shall deposit the deficit court fees, if
any. On deposit of deficit court fees, if any, the
amount of compensation be paid to claimants.
VI. Award be drawn up accordingly.
VII. Pending civil applications, if any, are disposed of.
VIII. Record and proceedings be sent back.
[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]
nga
Checking your session…