Bombay High Court
BHASKAR GOVINDRAO PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ORS
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The Reference Court's 25% deduction was reasonable and the refusal to enhance tree compensation was justified.
Summary
The appellants challenged the compensation awarded for land acquired in 1997 for the Talani Medium Project, arguing that the Reference Court unjustifiably applied a 25% deduction to the market value based on sale instances and failed to enhance compensation for trees on the land. The Reference Court had relied on agricultural sale instances of smaller parcels and deducted 25% when determining market value, and it declined to increase tree compensation due to lack of independent valuation evidence. The High Court examined whether the deduction was excessive and whether the tree compensation could be enhanced. It held that the 25% deduction was reasonable given the nature and size of the sale instances, and that the absence of independent evidence justified refusing the tree compensation enhancement. Consequently, the Court dismissed all the first appeals, leaving the original award unchanged.
Issues considered
- Whether the Reference Court was justified in applying a 25% deduction while determining market value based on the sale instances relied upon by the claimants
- Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation for the trees standing on the acquired lands
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 11, 18, 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- market value
- deduction
- trees
- enhancement
- Section 18
- agricultural land
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:38617
Dilwale 1 4-FA-1267-10.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
4 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1267 OF 2010
Prataprao Govindrao Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1226 OF 2010
Bhaskar Govindrao Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1266 OF 2010
Govindrao Marotirao Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1224 OF 2010
Ganesh Venkatrao Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1251 OF 2010
Sanjay Venkatrao Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1283 OF 2010
Laxmanrao Namdeorao Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
Dilwale 2 4-FA-1267-10.odt
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7601 OF 2026
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1268 OF 2010
Venkatrao Marotrao Patil Died Thr Lrs Ganesh And Anr.
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra, Through The Collector, Nanded And Ors.
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1268 OF 2010
Venkatrao Marotrao Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
...
Advocate for Appellants : Mr. Patil Milind M. (Beedkar)
Advocate for the acquiring body: Mr. S. S. Dande
AGP for Respondent-State: Mr. A. D. Wange
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 18.08.2026
PER COURT :
ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7601 OF 2026
1. Civil Application No. 7601 of 2026 is filed for bringing the legal
representatives of deceased appellant Venkatrao Marotrao Patil on record.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the Civil Application is
allowed.
3. Amendment be carried out within a period of two weeks.
ORDER IN FIRST APPEALS
4. As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1997, the appeals are
being heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the respective
Dilwale 3 4-FA-1267-10.odt
parties.
5. Being aggrieved by the judgments and awards dated 16/01/2010,
21/01/2010, 18/01/2010, 22/01/2010, 20/01/2010, 15/01/2010 and
19/01/2010 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Biloli in LAR
Nos.42, 43, 123, 41, 40, 122 and 124 of 2004, whereby the learned
Reference Court enhanced the compensation but not as per the claim of
the claimants.
6. The lands involved in these appeals were acquired for the purpose
of Talani Medium Project. The notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) was published on 22 nd March
1997. The Land Acquisition Officer declared the award under Section 11
on 21st February 2000 and determined the market value of the acquired
lands. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land
Acquisition Officer, the claimants sought reference under Section 18 of
the Act for enhancement of compensation.
7. Mr. Milind M. Patil, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that
the learned Reference Court erroneously applied exorbitant deduction of
25%. He further submits that once the learned Reference Court relied
upon the sale instances produced by the claimants, it ought not to have
applied such excessive deduction of 25% without assigning any valid
justification for the same. He submits that such exorbitant deduction is
not justifiable, particularly when the sale instances pertains to the
agricultural lands and acquired lands were also agricultural lands. He
Dilwale 4 4-FA-1267-10.odt
further submits that the sale instances relied upon by the claimants are
not in respect of distinct, converted or developed plots to apply such
exorbitant deduction.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the
compensation awarded by the SLAO towards the trees standing on the
acquired lands is inadequate. He further submits that the SLAO has
awarded compensation of Rs.12,086/- towards the trees standing in
survey no.44/2 and the same was meagre. He further submit that there is
no dispute regarding the number of trees standing on the acquired lands
and thus, appropriate compensation ought to have been awarded towards
such trees. He further submits that learned Reference Court erroneously
refused to enhance the compensation without any reasonable
justification. Therefore, he prays for allowing the appeals.
9. Per contra, Mr. S. S. Dande, learned counsel appearing for the
acquiring body, submits that the learned Reference Court has rightly
relied upon the sale instances and has applied appropriate deduction of
only 25%. He further submits that the sale instances pertained to
comparatively small pieces of land whereas the acquired land forms a
considerable portion of land. He further submits that ordinarily a higher
deduction could have been applied but the deduction of 25% applied by
the learned Reference Court is reasonable and not exorbitant. The
learned counsel further submits that the claimants had not produced any
independent evidence before the learned Reference Court regarding the
Dilwale 5 4-FA-1267-10.odt
valuation of the trees and, therefore, the learned Reference Court was
justified in refusing to enhance the compensation under the said head.
Therefore he prays for dismissal of the appeals.
10. Mr. A. D. Wange, learned AGP for the State adopted the
submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the acquiring body.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and
with their able assistance and having gone through the impugned
judgment and award as well as the record and proceedings. The limited
questions that arise for consideration in these appeals are:
(i) Whether the learned Reference Court was justified in
applying deduction of 25% while determining the market value
on the basis of the sale instances relied upon by the claimants;
and
(ii) Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of
compensation towards the trees standing on the acquired lands.
12. So far as the deduction of 25% is concerned, admittedly, the
sale instances dated 26.06.1996 and 28.06.1996 at Exhibits 41 and
42 respectively relied upon by the claimants pertain to agricultural
lands. However, the lands covered under the said sale instances were
comparatively smaller in area than the acquired lands. The learned
Reference Court, therefore, applied deduction of 25% while
determining the market value of the acquired lands. Considering the
nature of the sale instances and the extent of the lands involved
therein, I do not find that the deduction of 25% applied by the
Dilwale 6 4-FA-1267-10.odt
learned Reference Court is excessive or unjustified. On the contrary,
the deduction applied is reasonable in the facts and circumstances of
the present cases.
13. So far as the claim for enhancement of compensation towards
the trees is concerned, the learned Reference Court has recorded a
finding that the claimants did not adduce any independent evidence
regarding the valuation of the trees. In the absence of such evidence,
the learned Reference Court was justified in declining to enhance the
compensation awarded towards the trees.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any reason to
interfere with the judgment and award passed by the learned
Reference Court.
15. Hence, the following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) All the First Appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.
(ii) Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
Checking your session…