RAMRAO WAMANRAO DESHMUKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:32461
                                                                                   FA 1100/17
                                                      1

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  35 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1100 OF 2017

                                  RAMRAO WAMANRAO DESHMUKH
                                               VERSUS
                             THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
                                                  ...
                               Advocate for Appellant : Mr. S.S. Halkude
                              AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Dande
                                                  ...

                                  CORAM         : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                  Dated         : July 27, 2026

            PER COURT :-

            1.    Admit.

            2.    As the acquisition proceeding was initiated in the year 2005, heard

            finally with the consent of learned counsel for respective parties.

            3.    By this appeal, the appellant/original claimant is challenging the

            judgment and award dated 9.8.2012 passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge,

            Senior Division, Udgir in LAR No. 1420/2010 (Old No. 305/2007).

            4.    The land of the claimant admeasuring 2 H. 41 R. from Block No. 41

            situated   at   village   Takli-Wagdari   was   acquired   for   the   purpose   of

            construction of Takli Village Tank situated at village Takli-Wagdari, Tq. Udgir.

            Villages Takali-Wagdari were connected each other and for the same

            project, lands were acquired. Notification under section 4 of the Land

            Acquisition Act was published on 13.10.2005. The possession of the land

            was taken over on 16.2.20004. The final award was passed by the Special

            Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) on 29.11.2006. The SLAO has granted rate

            of Rs.854/- per R. Being aggrieved, the claimant filed above reference

            under section 18 of the Act. Before the reference court, the claimant has

            relied upon award passed by the SLAO, E statement, sale deed, 7/12
                                                                  FA 1100/17
                                      2

extract, tax receipts, electricity bills and the record slip issued by sugar

factory, below Exhs. 11 to 24, 27, 34 to 37, respectively.        As per sale

instance, Exh. 13, dated 15.4.2002 the land admeasuring 47 R. was sold for

Rs. 1,51,000/- i.e. Rs.3213/- per R. The reference court by treating some

part of acquired land as dry land, deducted 30% and thereafter granted

30% escalation for three years and again reduced 30% from the market

value on the ground that the sale instance was from the different village

and has granted compensation at the rate of Rs.4400/- per R. irrigated

land, Rs. 2200/- per R. for dry land. The reference court has treated 80 R.

land out of entire acquired land as dry land and therefore, being aggrieved,

the present appeal is filed.

5.    Mr. S.S. Halkude, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits

that the learned reference court though relied on sale instance Exh. 13,

deduction in all 60% of the market value, though 30% price escalation was

granted for three years and ultimately in all 30% deduction has been made

from the market value of the sale instance, Exh. 13, which is in respect of

47 R. sold from adjacent village Wagdari. He therefore submits that the

deduction of 60% ought not to have been made by the reference court and

considering the fact that the land was acquired in the year 2002 and the

notification was issued in the year 2005, the claimants are entitled to

receive 30% escalation from the market value determined by the reference

court. On this ground, therefore, he prays to allow the appeal.

6.    Per contra, Mr. S.S. Dande, learned AGP for State has vehemently

submits that the sale instance at Exh. 13 is from different village and more

particularly 47 R. land was sold and therefore, the learned reference court

has rightly deducted 60%, even the learned reference court has granted

30% price escalation for three years and therefore, ultimately there was
                                                                 FA 1100/17
                                     3

only 30% deductions. He further submits that the sale instance was in

respect of small piece of land and from the different village. He further

submits that considering the 7/12 extract of the acquired land the SLAO has

considered the acquired land as dry land, but the reference court has taken

a reasonable view and has rightly granted compensation. He therefore prays

to dismiss the appeal.

7.    Having heard the learned counsel for respective parties, with the

assistance of learned counsel I have gone through the record and

proceedings and the judgment and award passed by the reference court.

There is no doubt that land of the claimant was acquired for aforesaid

project. The land of the claimant from village Takli was acquired and the

project was implemented for Takli-Wagdari villages. The sale instance, Exh.

13, dated 15.4.2002 is from village Wagdari and the sale consideration was

for 47 R. land and therefore, it cannot be said that the same is small piece

of land and therefore, I find that on this ground the learned reference court

ought not to have deducted 30% in view of the fact that the title clause and

record shows that Takali-Wagdari villages are connected villages. Therefore,

to that effect in my view the learned reference court has committed error

while deducting 30% amount from market value. Even on persual of record,

it is seen that no any contra evidence was led by the acquiring body to show

that these are two different villages. Therefore, I further hold that the

learned reference court has rightly relied upon the sale instance,Exh. 13 as

a comparable sale instance on which claimant relied. The sale instance is

dated 15.4.2002 and section 4 notification was published on 13.10.2005

and therefore, I find that the claimant is entitled to receive 10% escalation

per year for the period of two years excluding the first year i.e. 2002. As

per the sale instance, Exh. 13, market value of acquired land comes to
                                                                          FA 1100/17
                                         4

Rs.3213/- per R. and by adding 20% price escalation i.e. Rs.642.5 market

value of the acquired land comes to Rs.3855/- per R. for dry land and

making double of it comes to Rs. 7710/- per R. for irrigated land.

8.      As regards the treating 80 R. land as dry land is concerned,

considering the 7/12 extract, it appears that the claimant was cultivating

Kharip crops and the crop pattern also shows the same, therefore, to that

extent, I am not inclined to interfere in the finding recorded by the

reference court. Hence, I pass the following order.

                                    ORDER

(I)     The appeal is partly allowed.

(II)    The appellant/claimant is entitled to receive compensation at the rate

of Rs. 7710/- per R. for Bagayat land and Rs. 3855/- per R. for Jirayat land.

(III)   The   appellants/claimant    shall   be   entitled   to   all   consequential

statutory benefits under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on

the enhanced compensation.

(IV)    The impugned judgment and order of the reference court is modified

to that extent.

(V)     Rest of the award is maintained.

(VI)    Claimants to pay deficit court fees, if any, on enhanced amount.

(VI)    Civil Applications, if any, stands disposed of.



                                             ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )

ssc/