Bombay High Court
THE STATE OF MAHversusSURESH PANDHARINATH MAHAJAN and ANR
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The court held that the Exhibit‑41 sale is a comparable transaction and, after a total 53% deduction, the appropriate compensation rate is Rs 59 per square metre.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra acquired 79 ropani of land in Hol village, Jalgaon district, for a civil court building, issuing a Section 4 notification in 1986 and awarding compensation of Rs 40 per square metre. The claimants challenged the award, relying on a 1986 sale (Exhibit‑41) of 320 sq m in the same village for Rs 40,000, which implied a rate of Rs 125 per square metre. The trial court dismissed the sale instance as non‑comparable and upheld the lower rate. On appeal, the High Court examined whether the sale could be treated as a comparable transaction despite differences in location and size. It held that the sale was comparable, but applied a 33% development charge deduction and a further 20% deduction for the small‑piece nature, totaling a 53% reduction, resulting in a compensation rate of Rs 59 per square metre. The State's appeal was dismissed, while the claimants' appeal was partly allowed, modifying the award accordingly and granting statutory interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Issues considered
- Whether the sale instance in Exhibit‑41 is a comparable sale for determining market value of the acquired land.
- Whether the compensation rate should be enhanced beyond the trial court's award of Rs 40 per square metre.
- Whether deductions for development charges and the small‑piece nature of the land are applicable.
- Whether interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act should be awarded.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 28, 34, 4
Subjects
- Land acquisition
- Compensation
- Comparable sale
- Market value
- Development charges
- Section 28
- Section 34
- Private negotiation
- Civil court building
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:38668
1 of 7 01-FA.1137.2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
1 FIRST APPEAL NO.1137 OF 2006
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
VERSUS
SURESH PANDHARINATH MAHAJAN AND ANR
...
Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for the Appellant.
Mr. A. B. Kale, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr. M. M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2A to 2E.
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO.329 OF 2012
DIGAMBAR PANDHARINATH MAHAJAN DIED THROU LRS
NARENDRA DIGAMBAR MAHAJAN AND ORS
VERSUS
THE COLLECTOR JALGAON AND ORS
…
Mr. M. M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Atmaram J. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.4 is Absent.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2026
P.C.:-
1. Since the acquisition proceedings pertain to the year 1986,
the appeals are heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates
for the respective parties.
2. By the present appeals, the Appellants are aggrieved by the
common judgment and award dated 18.02.2006 passed by the learned
Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Jalgaon in LAR No.1190/2005 (Old
2 of 7 01-FA.1137.2006
No.53/2003).
3. The First Appeal No.1137 of 2006 is filed by the State and
First Appeal No.329 of 2012 is filed by the Claimants.
4. As far as First Appeal No.1137 of 2006 is concerned, the
State has challenged the said order, being aggrieved by the judgment
and award passed by the learned Reference Court, which has granted
exorbitant compensation. As regards the First Appeal No.329 of 2012 is
concerned, the same is filed by the Claimants.
5. Therefore, the First Appeal No.329 of 2012 was filed by the
other person.
6. Brief facts of the present cases are as under:-
(i) The land admeasuring 79 R out of Gat No.8, situated at Village
Hol, Taluka Raver, District Jalgaon, was acquired for
construction of the Civil Court building at Raver in S.R.
No.31/83.
(ii) The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (for short, “the Act”) was published in the Government
Gazette on 18.06.1986.
(iii) The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “SLAO”) passed
an award on 26.10.1987.
(iv) The possession was taken by private negotiation on 10.11.1987.
3 of 7 01-FA.1137.2006
The SLAO granted a rate of Rs.520/- per R, i.e. Rs.52,000/- per
hectare.
(v) Being aggrieved by the same, the Claimants filed reference and
relied upon the sale instance below Exhibit-41 dated 16.05.1986
and claimed compensation @ Rs.125/- per square meter, i.e.
Rs.9,87,500/-. The learned Reference Court did not consider the
sale instance below Exhibit-41 and, on the basis of guesswork,
granted the rate of Rs.40/- per square meter. Therefore, the
present appeals are filed.
7. Mr. A. M. Phule, learned AGP for the State, submits that the
land which is acquired is from Village Hol and, once the learned
Reference Court has discarded the sale instance below Exhibit-41, the
learned Reference Court ought not to have granted enhancement only
on the basis of guesswork. He submits that the land from Gat No.8,
which is acquired was not included in the municipal limits. The
distance between the land in the sale instance below Exhibit-41 and
the acquired land is considerably far. Therefore, once the learned
Reference Court discarded the sale instance below Exhibit-41, the
learned Reference Court was not supposed to grant compensation only
on the basis of guesswork.
8. Per contra, Mr. A. B. Kale, learned Advocate for Respondent
No.1 in First Appeal No.1137 of 2006, and Mr. M. M. Bhokarikar,
4 of 7 01-FA.1137.2006
learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.2A to 2E in First Appeal No.1137
of 2006 and for the Appellant in First Appeal No.329 of 2012, submit
that, as regards the sale instance below Exhibit-41, the same is dated
16.05.1986. The vendor has sold the land admeasuring 320 square
meters out of Gat No.85, situated at Village Hol, Taluka Raver, District
Jalgaon, for consideration of Rs.40,000/-, and the rate per square
meter comes to Rs.125/-.
9. Both the learned Advocates have submitted that the learned
Reference Court ought not to have discarded the sale instance, as the
acquired land and the land in the sale instance below Exhibit-41 are
situated in the same village Hol. Therefore, the learned Reference
Court ought not to have discarded the same.
10. Both the learned Advocates have submitted that the
possession was taken by private negotiation on 10.11.1987 for the
construction of the Civil Court building and the Civil Court building
was to be constructed at the outskirts of the city. However, Raver city
and Hol (Shivar) are adjacent and in between Raver and Hol (Shivar),
there is only a road. Therefore, the entire area of Village Hol (Shivar) is
already a developed area. Hence, merely because the land is situated in
Hol (Shivar), the learned Reference Court has discarded the same.
Therefore, both the learned Advocates have submitted that they are
entitled to receive the rate as per the sale instance below Exhibit-41.
5 of 7 01-FA.1137.2006
11. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties
and with their assistance, I have gone through the copy of the record
and proceedings. There is no dispute about the fact that the land
admeasuring 79 R from Hol, Taluka Raver, District Jalgaon, was
acquired for the construction of the Civil Court building at Raver. The
purpose of the acquisition is to be considered in the context that if the
Court building is to be constructed, the same must be constructed in
the existing city. Only because some area is mentioned not as Raver,
but as Hol (Shivar), it is only a difference of nomenclature. The city of
Raver and the acquired land is bifurcated by a road and the entire area
is already developed one. As the land is acquired for construction of
Civil Court building, it can be presumed that the same was to be
constructed within the vicinity of the city.
12. Therefore, I am of the opinion that Exhibit-41 can be
considered as a comparable sale instance for determining the market
rate for the acquired land. As per the sale instance below Exhibit-41,
320 square meters out of Gat No.85, situated at Hol (Shivar), was sold
for Rs.40,000/-. Therefore, as per the contention and the evidence
available on record, that was adjacent to Raver city and the area is also
a developed area. Therefore, 33% development charges need to be
deducted by applying the sale instance. Furthermore, the sale instance
is of a small piece of land, whereas the land admeasuring 79 R was
6 of 7 01-FA.1137.2006
acquired. Therefore, further deduction of 20% towards the small piece
of land needs to be applied. Total deduction amounting to 53% must
be applied to market value of Rs.125/- per square meter, which comes
to Rs.58.75/-, rounded off to Rs.59/- per square meter. Hence, I
proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
(i) First Appeal No.1137 of 2006 filed by the State is
dismissed.
(ii) First Appeal No.329 of 2012 filed by the Claimants is
partly allowed.
(iii) The Claimants are entitled to receive compensation @
of Rs.59/- per square meter and to that extent,
impugned award stands modified.
(iv) The Claimants are entitled to receive all the statutory
benefits along with interest as per Sections 28 and 34 of
the Act from the date of the award as per the Full Bench
judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs.
Kailash Shiva Rangari, reported in 2016(3) Mh.L.J.
457.
(v) Rest of the impugned award stands unaltered.
(vi) Modified award be drawn accordingly.
7 of 7 01-FA.1137.2006
(vii) Deficit Court fees be paid.
(viii) The Claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount, if
any, deposited by the acquiring body, by adjusting the
amount of interest under Section 28 and 34 of the Act
from the amount of compensation payable for the
acquired land.
(ix) The bank guarantee, solvent security/surety or
undertaking, as the case may be, if any, stands
discharged.
(x) Pending civil applications, if any, are also disposed of.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Tauseef
Checking your session…