SAHEBRAO KISHANRAO MOREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:25490
                                               1


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

                                906 FIRST APPEAL NO.1179 OF 2019

               Sahebrao Kishanrao More (Died)
               Through LRs : Sakhubai and Others                         ..Appellants
                     Versus
               The State of Maharashtra and Ors                          ..Respondents
                                                   …..
                            Shri. Santosh S. Patil, Advocate for Appellants
                          Smt. M. L. Sangit, AGP for the Respondent – State.
                           Shri. A. S. Shelke, Advocate for Respondent No.3
                                                   …..

                                             CORAM :       NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
                                             Dated     :   JULY 02, 2026

               FINAL ORDER :-

               .     This is the First Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition

               Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘L.A. Act’) by the Orig. Claimant

               for further enhancement in the compensation towards acquisition of his

               land admeasuring 0-Hectare, 60-Ares (6000 Sq. Meters) from Survey

               No.316/B situated at village Sonkhed, Tal. Loha, Dist. Nanded for the

               purpose of 33 KV Sub-station.



               2.    The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short, ‘SLAO’) published

               Section – 4 Notification on 15.03.1998. The Award was declared on

               14.07.1999 determining the compensation @ Rs.49/- per Sq. Meter.

               Being not satisfied with the said rate, the Appellants - Claimant filed the

               Land Acquisition Reference No.657/2003 (Old LAR No.29/2001) for
                               2
enhanced compensation. The Appellant led the evidence in support of

his claim. No evidence was led by the Respondents. Considering the

evidence on record, the learned Reference Court enhanced the

compensation at the rate of Rs.123/- per Sq. Meter with the

consequential statutory benefits.



3.    Heard the learned Advocate for the Appellant, the learned

Advocate for the Acquiring Body and the learned AGP for the State.

With their assistance, perused the papers on record.



A)    It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellant that, the

SLAO collected near about six (6) sale instances, which were of higher

rate, however awarded minimum rate of compensation. The learned

Reference Court should have considered the sale instances mentioned in

the Award. It is further submitted that, the learned Reference Court did

not consider the second sale instance relied upon by the Appellant which

was from the same village. The learned Reference Court considered only

one sale instance below Exh.25. The acquired land had non agricultural

potentiality and therefore, more compensation ought to have been

determined. He submits that, the Appeal be allowed.



B)    It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Acquiring Body

that, Exh. 26 was not the sale-deed. It was the transaction on the stamp
                                 3
paper which was not valid and therefore, the learned Reference Court

has rightly not considered the same. The learned Reference Court

considered the sale instance - Exh.25 which was relied upon by the

Appellant - Claimant and has rightly determined the compensation.         It

is submitted that, the land was situated in the rural area and therefore,

no escalation was considered by the learned Reference Court.             In

support of his submissions, he relied on the decision in General

Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai

Patel and Anr, AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 465 , wherein it is observed that, ‘ if

the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to

15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at

best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum’. It is

further observed that, ‘the said rule of thumb refers to the general trend

in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific

evidence relating to increase in prices’.



C)    It is submitted by the learned AGP that, the learned Reference

Court has rightly considered the evidence on record and no interference

was called for.



4.    It is needless to state that, the Award passed by the SLAO is the

offer. It is for the Appellants - Claimant to establish and prove their case

/ claim before the learned Reference Court by leading the necessary
                              4
evidence. The papers shows that, in support of their claim for enhanced

compensation, the Appellants relied on the sale instance below Exh.25.

The observations in the Judgment by the learned Reference Court show

that, the land which was the subject matter of the sale instance was at

the distance of 50 meters from the acquired land.    It is observed that,

‘the adjacent land of the acquired land was developed land ’. By

considering the said sale instance, the learned Reference Court has

determined the compensation @ Rs.123/- per Sq. Meter. The learned

Reference Court has rightly not considered the another sale instance

which was admittedly on the stamp paper. It is clear that, on the basis

of the evidence on record, the learned Reference Court had granted the

enhancement in the compensation. Thus, no fault can be found with the

enhancement determined by the learned Reference Court.



5.    Undisputedly, Section - 4 Notification was published on

15.03.1998 and the said sale instance below Exh.25 which was

considered by the learned Reference Court was dated 02.03.1996. This

clearly goes to show that, the said sale instance was two years prior to

Section - 4 Notification. The learned Reference Court has considered the

topography of the acquired land, and observed that it was situated near

the Nanded–Latur Highway and the road connecting Sonkhed to

Dagadgaon and Kolheborgaon and both roads pass in close proximity to

the acquired land and the land was acquired for the Sub-station. From
                                          5
these observations, it is clear that, the acquired land was adjacent to or

in the semi-urban area. Therefore, the Appellants would be entitled for

10% per annum escalation in the market rate. Considering 10% per

annum escalation for two (2) years, the market rate would come to

Rs.148/- per Sq. Meter. Undisputedly, there will have to be deduction

towards development charges. The learned Reference Court has

considered 30% deduction towards the same. The said deduction

appears to be in consonance with law. Accordingly, after deducting 30%

towards development charges, the compensation will have to be

computed on the enhanced market rate with the consequential statutory

benefits. The calculation would come as under:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market price of the acquired land adm.
0-Hectare, 60-Ares i.e. 6000 Sq. Meters
@ Rs.148/- per Square Meter                                                   Rs. 8,88,000/-
Less 30% development charges                                                  Rs.2,66,400/-
                                              Total Compensation              Rs.6,21,600/-
Less compensation received by
the Appellant                                                                 Rs.2,94,000/-
Enhanced Compensation                                                         Rs.5,92,200/-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6.      The operative order of the impugned Judgment and Award shows

that, the interest is granted from the date of Notification which is

contrary to the law laid down by this Court in The State of Maharashtra

vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (4) ALL MR 513 and therefore, the

appropriate modification to that effect is required in the Award.
                                  6
7.       In view of the above discussion, the following order is passed.

                                      ORDER

A)       The First Appeal is partly allowed.


B)       The Appellants – Claimants would be entitled for enhanced
compensation of Rs.5,92,200/- (Rs. Five Lakh Ninety Two Thousand
Two Hundred) with the statutory benefits.


C)       The interest shall be calculated from the date of the Award as per
the Judgment in The State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari,
2016 (4) ALL MR 513.


D)       The Appellants shall pay the deficit court fees.


E)       The Appellants shall not be entitled for the interest for the
delayed period, if any.


F)       Record and Proceedings be sent back to the learned Reference
Court.



                                                 ( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. )

GGP