Bombay High Court

DEVRAO YESHWANTRAO MADAVI AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED

Holding

The market value of the acquired land is fixed at Rs 1,25,000 per hectare, and the appeal is partly allowed.

Summary

The appellants challenged the award of Rs 70,000 per hectare for land acquired for a storage tank, arguing that a prior sale of a nearby hectare for Rs 2,50,000 should raise the market value. The Reference Court had fixed the market value at Rs 1,20,000 per hectare after a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The court examined the comparability of the sale deed, noting that the sold land was not adjacent, was near a nala, and lacked evidence of irrigation, making it an imperfect comparator. Applying a 50 % deduction to the sale price, the court fixed the adjusted market value at Rs 1,25,000 per hectare, a marginal increase of Rs 5,000 over the earlier figure. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, the award was modified, and the claimants were entitled to statutory benefits and interest under Section 34 of the Act.

Issues considered

Whether a sale deed of non‑adjacent, non‑irrigated land can be treated as a comparable transaction for valuation under the Land Acquisition Act
Whether the lack of evidence of irrigation precludes full application of the sale price to the acquired land
What quantum of compensation is appropriate in light of the identified comparable

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 11, 18, 34, 4

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation
market value
comparable sale
irrigation
Section 4
Section 18
Section 34
partial enhancement

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:40629
34-FA-1191-2014.odt
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

34 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1191 OF 2014

Devrao Yeshwantrao Madavi And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others

……
Mr. M.D. Narwadkar, Advocate for Appellants-Claimants
Mr. S.S. Dande, AGP for Respondents No.1 and 2
……

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 29 AUGUST, 2026
PER COURT :

1. Heard learned counsel Mr. M.D. Narwadkar for the appellants and

learned AGP Mr. S.S. Dande, for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. By this appeal, the appellants-original claimants challenge the

Judgment and Award dated 02.12.2013 passed by the learned Joint Civil

Judge, Senior Division, Nanded, in Land Acquisition Reference No.465 of

2010. By the said Judgment and Award, the learned Reference Court partly

allowed the reference and determined the market value of the acquired land

at Rs.1,20,000/- per Hectare. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of

compensation, the claimants have preferred the present appeal.

3. The land belonging to claimant No.1, admeasuring 2 Hectare 02 R

from Gut No.23, and the land belonging to claimant No.2, admeasuring 2

Hectare 43 R, situated at village Nirala Tanda, Taluka Kinwat, District
34-FA-1191-2014.odt
2

Nanded, were acquired for the purpose of construction of Storage Tank at

Nirala Tanda. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 was published on 02.08.2007. The Special Land Acquisition Officer

passed the Award under Section 11 of the Act on 24.12.2008 and awarded

compensation at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per Hectare. The claimants

accepted the said amount under protest and sought a reference under

Section 18 of the Act.

4. Before the learned Reference Court, the claimants relied upon the

sale deed at Exhibit 21, dated 23.01.2007. Under the said sale deed, land

admeasuring 1 Hectare from Gut No.13 was sold for Rs.2,50,000/-. The

learned Reference Court noticed that the land covered by the said sale deed

was not adjacent to the acquired land. From the village map at Exhibit 22, it

found that Gut No.13 was situated near Daheli Tanda. The claimant had also

admitted in cross-examination that a Nala was passing nearby the land

covered by the said sale deed. The learned Reference Court further noticed

that, except the 7/12 extract, the claimants had not produced any document

to establish that the acquired land was irrigated. Considering the material

on record, the learned Reference Court determined the market value of the

acquired land at Rs.1,20,000/- per Hectare.

5. Learned counsel Mr. Narwadkar, for the appellants submits that the

sale deed at Exhibit 21 is dated 23.01.2007 and is prior to the publication of

the Section 4 notification dated 02.08.2007. He submits that 1 Hectare of
34-FA-1191-2014.odt
3

land was sold under the said transaction for Rs.2,50,000/-. According to

him, the said transaction is a relevant comparable instance and, therefore,

the market value of the acquired land deserves to be enhanced by granting

compensation at the rate reflected in Exhibit 21.

6. Per contra, learned AGP Mr. Dande, supports the impugned

Judgment and Award. He submits that the land covered by the said sale

deed is not adjacent to the acquired land, is situated near Daheli Tanda and

has a Nala passing nearby. He further submits that there is no sufficient

evidence to establish that the acquired land was irrigated. He, therefore,

submits that no further enhancement is warranted.

7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the Record and

Proceedings and the impugned Judgment and Award.

8. There is no dispute that the sale deed at Exhibit 21 is dated

23.01.2007 and is prior to the publication of the Section 4 notification dated

02.08.2007. Under the said transaction, 1 Hectare of land was sold for

Rs.2,50,000/-. However, the said transaction cannot be treated as an exact

comparable instance. The land covered by Exhibit 21 is not adjacent to the

acquired land. The village map at Exhibit 22 shows that Gut No.13 is

situated near Daheli Tanda and the claimant has admitted that a Nala passes

nearby the said land.
34-FA-1191-2014.odt
4

9. There is also no sufficient evidence on record to establish that the

acquired land was irrigated. The learned Reference Court has specifically

noticed that, except the 7/12 extract, no material was produced by the

claimants to establish irrigation of the acquired land. Thus, the rate reflected

in Exhibit 21 cannot be applied in its entirety to the acquired land.

10. Considering the aforesaid distinguishing features, an appropriate

deduction from the rate reflected in Exhibit 21 is warranted. The rate

reflected in the said sale deed and the rate after deduction of 50% work out

as follows:

Particulars Calculation Amount
Sale consideration under For 1 Hectare Rs.2,50,000/-
Exhibit 21
50% deduction Rs.2,50,000 × 50% Rs.1,25,000/-
Adjusted market value Rs.2,50,000 − Rs.1,25,000 Rs.1,25,000/-
per Hectare

11. Thus, after making the appropriate adjustment, the market value

works out to Rs.1,25,000/- per Hectare. The learned Reference Court had

determined the market value at Rs.1,20,000/- per Hectare. In the facts and

circumstances of the case, the appellants are, therefore, entitled to a

marginal enhancement of Rs.5,000/- per Hectare.

12. The determination of Rs.1,25,000/- per Hectare also takes into

account the limitations of the sale instance relied upon by the claimants and

avoids applying to the acquired land the full rate fetched by land having
34-FA-1191-2014.odt
5

different locational and physical features. I, therefore, find that the market

value of the acquired land deserves to be fixed at Rs.1,25,000/- per Hectare.

13. In view of the above discussion, the appeal deserves to be partly

allowed. Hence, the following order:

ORDER

(i) The First Appeal is partly allowed.

(ii) The Judgment and Award dated 02.12.2013 passed by the learned

Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded, in Land Acquisition Reference

No.465 of 2010 stands modified.

(iii) The market value of the acquired land is determined at rate of

Rs.1,25,000/- per Hectare, instead of Rs.1,20,000/- per Hectare determined

by the learned Reference Court.

(iv) The claimant shall be entitled to all consequential statutory benefits

on the enhanced compensation in accordance with the provisions of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

(v) The claimant shall be entitled to interest under Section 34 of the Act,

strictly in accordance with the Full Bench decision in State of Maharashtra

vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457.

(vi) Save and except the aforesaid modification in the quantum of

compensation, the Judgment and Award passed by the learned Reference
34-FA-1191-2014.odt
6

Court shall remain unaltered.

(vii) The claimants shall pay deficit Court fee, if any, on the enhanced

compensation.

(viii) Modified Award be drawn accordingly.

[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
S P Rane

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…