Bombay High Court

ANIL MADHAV ATNURE AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE COLLECTOR, NANDED AND ORS

Disposal: PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Bench: SHAILESH P BRAHME

Holding

The Reference Court committed patent illegality by not accepting the private valuer’s report, and the compensation must be fixed at the full valuation of Rs.10,22,503.

Summary

The appellants challenged a 2019 award by the Reference Court that granted only a 40% enhancement of compensation for their house property acquired for the Lendi project, despite a private valuer’s report valuing the property at Rs.10,22,503. They argued that the court should accept the private valuer’s full valuation to ensure parity, citing prior decisions of the Bombay High Court. The respondents contended that the award was adequate and no enhancement was warranted. The Court held that the Reference Court committed a patent illegality by not accepting the private valuer’s report in entirety and ordered the compensation to be set at Rs.10,22,503 with interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appeal was allowed partly, the award was adjusted accordingly, and the case was remitted to the Reference Court for drawing up the revised award.

Issues considered

Whether the Reference Court erred in granting only a 40% enhancement instead of accepting the private valuer’s full valuation.
Whether the private valuer’s report can be relied upon for determining compensation in land acquisition cases.
Whether interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act is payable on the enhanced compensation.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 11, 28, 34, 4

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation enhancement
private valuer
parity principle
interest under Land Acquisition Act
Section 28
Section 34
reference court

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:6757

1 FA1237 23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT
AURANGABAD

48 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1237 OF 2023

ANIL MADHAV ATNURE AND ANR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE COLLECTOR, NANDED
AND ORS
...
Advocate for Appellant : Ms. L.R. Thakur h/f Mr. Patil Laxmikant C.
AGP for Respondent nox. 1 & 2 : Mr. N.D. Raje
Advocate for Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Narwade Vinayak P.
...

CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 12.02.2026.

FINAL ORDER :

. Appellants are questioning judgment and award dated
17.04.2019 passed by the Reference Court in L. A. R. No. 196 of
2012 and seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground of
parity.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that
this Court has been taking consistent view in case of acquisition of
house property to accept private valuer’s report for awarding the
compensation. The Reference Court only granted enhancement to
the extent of 40% instead of accepting the valuer’s report.

3. The submissions of the appellants are contested by the
respondents. It is submitted that no case is made out for
enhancement and adequate compensation has already been granted
by the Reference Court.

4. The acquisition of the house property is for Lendi project and
2 FA1237 23

the property is from village Itgyal, Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded. The
notification under Section 4 was issued on 03.05.2007 and award
was passed under Section 11 on 27.08.2010. Following are the
material particulars.

L.A.R. NO. First Appeal House no. and L.A.O. Reference Valuation and
& date of no. area granted Court granted Exh. no. of
decision compensati enhancement valuation
on report
196/2012 1237/2023 Old H. No. 392 & Rs. 40% Rs.
17.04.2019 192, 3,45,441/- Rs. 10,22,503/-
new H.No. 225, 1,38,176/-
318 square meter

5. Appellants have adduced evidence of private valuer at Exhibit
23. The valuation is shown to be of Rs.10,22,503/-. There is no
contra evidence adduced by the respondent – acquiring body. This
Court has been taking consistent view in accepting the report of the
private valuer for enhancing the compensation. A useful reliance can
be had to following judgments of the of this Court:
(i) Kashinath s/o Nagnth Vs. State of
Maharashtra in First Appeal No. 2460/2021,
decided on 13.07.2022.
(ii) Ramesh s/o Govindrao Patil Vs. State of
Maharashtra, in First Appeal No. 1814/2023,
decided on 18.12.2025.

6. The Reference Court has committed patent illegality in
awarding the compensation marginally instead of accepting the
report of private valuer in entirety. I, therefore, pass following order.
3 FA1237 23

ORDER
A. The first appeal is allowed partly.

B. The appellants are entitled to compensation of
Rs.10,22,503/- for the acquired house property.

C. The appellants shall be entitled to receive interest
U/Sec. 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act in view of the
judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of
State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari [2016 AIR
(Bom.)141].

D. Save and except above, the impugned judgment and
award shall remain unaltered.

E. The appellants shall pay the deficit court fees.

F. Award be drawn up accordingly.

G. Record and proceedings shall be sent back to the
Reference Court.

( SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. )

mkd/-

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…