GOVIND LAXMAN PAWARversusTHE STATE OF MAH

2026:BHC-AUG:38627
              Dilwale                                     1              31 and 37-fa-1257-08.odt




                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                   31 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1257 OF 2008

                                      Govind Laxman Pawar
                                              VERSUS
                                     The State Of Maharashtra
                                                 ...
             Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Vivek V. Ingale
             AGP for Respondent-State: Mr. B. A. Shinde
                                                 …
                              37 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1129 OF 2010

                                    The State Of Maharashtra
                                              VERSUS
                                      Govind Laxman Pawar
                                                 ...
             AGP for Appellant/State : Mr. B. A. Shinde
             Advocate for Respondent : Mr. B. K. Pawar
                                                 ...

                                      CORAM        : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                      DATE         : 18.08.2026

             PER COURT :
             1.         Since the acquisition proceedings are of the year 1993, both the

             appeals are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the

             respective parties.

             2.         These cross-appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated

             18.12.2007 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior             Division,

             Omerga in L.A.R. No. 65 of 2005. First Appeal No. 1129 of 2010 has been

             preferred by the State, whereas First Appeal No. 1257 of 2008 has been

             preferred by the original claimant.
 Dilwale                                       2              31 and 37-fa-1257-08.odt


3.         The land of the claimant from Survey No.64/4 adm. 1H 70R from

village Naichakur Tq. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad was acquired for the

purpose of Sarvadi Medium Project. The possession of the land was taken

in the year 1987 by private negotiations. The notification under Section 4

of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 2 nd September 1993. The

Land Acquisition Officer awarded inadequate compensation towards the

acquired land and also towards the trees standing thereon.

4.         Before the Reference Court, the claimant relied upon a sale

instance from village Sarvadi, whereby land admeasuring 18 Are was sold

in the year 1991 for consideration of Rs.30,000/-. The claimant had also

relied upon the valuation reports below Exhibits 39, 40 and 41 in support

of his claim for enhanced compensation towards the trees and structures.

5.         The learned Reference Court relied upon the said sale instance at

Exhibit 18 and determined the market value at the rate of Rs.38,000/-

per acre. The learned Reference Court also awarded compensation

towards the trees and structures to the extent of Rs.2,71,250/-. Being

dissatisfied with the grant of compensation towards the trees and

structures, the State has preferred First Appeal No.1129 of 2010. On the

other hand, the claimant has preferred First Appeal No.1257 of 2008

seeking enhancement in the market value of the acquired land.

6.         Learned AGP for the State submits that the Land Acquisition Officer

had already determined compensation towards the trees on the basis of

the trees found standing on the acquired land. According to him, before
 Dilwale                                     3             31 and 37-fa-1257-08.odt


the Reference Court, the claimant relied upon the valuation reports

wherein the number of trees shown was more than the number of trees

recorded in the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore,

according to him, the learned Reference Court ought not to have relied

upon the valuation reports.

7.         Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the learned

Reference Court relied upon the sale instance and, though the market

value reflected from the said sale instance was higher, without assigning

any reasons, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.38,000/- per acre. It

is further submitted that the learned Reference Court ought to have

granted appropriate compensation towards the trees on the basis of the

valuation reports.

8.         Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and

with their able assistance, having gone through the record and

proceedings, it is clear that the award passed by the Land Acquisition

Officer shows that compensation was awarded in respect of the trees

recorded therein. As regards the acquired land bearing Survey No.64/4,

the award refers to the trees found standing on the said land, including

one custard apple tree and five lemon trees.

9.         I have also gone through the extract of the revenue record

pertaining to the acquired land. The revenue record does not reflect the

number of trees allegedly standing on the acquired land. The crop pattern

mentioned therein also does not support the claim regarding the
 Dilwale                                       4              31 and 37-fa-1257-08.odt


existence of the trees as shown in the valuation reports.

10.        The claimant has relied upon valuation reports at Exhibits 39, 40

and 41. However, on perusal of the said reports, it is difficult to ascertain

as to when the valuer visited the acquired land and when the reports

were actually prepared and submitted. The reports are in a prescribed

format wherein the relevant particulars regarding the number, age and

valuation of the trees have been filled in. In my considered view, it would

be unsafe to rely upon such valuation reports in the absence of

satisfactory evidence regarding the date of inspection, the basis of

valuation and the existence of the trees on the date of acquisition.

11.        The evidence of the valuer also does not inspire confidence. In his

examination-in-chief, he stated that he had visited the claimant's land on

21st May 1994 and had taken measurements of the fruit-bearing trees.

However, the valuation report does not satisfactorily disclose the basis on

which the valuation was arrived at. In the cross-examination, the valuer

admitted that he was not a Government-approved or certified valuer. He

was unable to state the method adopted by him for valuation of the trees.

He further admitted that he had not maintained any rough notes

regarding the valuation. According to him, he had collected information

from Government officials and thereafter valued the property.

12.        In view of the aforesaid admissions, it would be wholly unsafe to

place reliance upon the valuation reports. The learned Reference Court,

therefore, ought not to have granted enhanced compensation towards the
 Dilwale                                       5              31 and 37-fa-1257-08.odt


trees solely on the basis of such reports. The claimant had also relied

upon the valuation report regarding the structures prepared by Shri R. S.

Baraskar. According to the said report, the valuer had visited the acquired

property on 20th May 1994. However, for the same reasons, in the

absence of satisfactory material regarding the basis and method of

valuation, it would be unsafe to rely upon the said report.

13.        Consequently, the award passed by the learned Reference Court to

the extent of granting enhanced compensation towards the trees and

structures cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.

14.        Now, turning to the market value of the acquired land, the claimant

relied upon a sale instance from village Sarvadi, wherein land

admeasuring 18 Are was sold for a consideration of Rs.30,000/-. The

market value reflected from the said sale transaction works out to

approximately Rs.66,000/- per acre. The learned Reference Court, while

considering the said sale instance, determined the market value at a

higher rate. However, while actually awarding compensation, the learned

Reference Court granted compensation at the rate of only Rs.38,000/- per

acre without recording any reasons for reducing the market value to that

extent.

15.        The sale instance relates to a small piece of land admeasuring 18

Are, whereas the acquired land is of a much larger extent. Therefore, I

am not inclined to grant escalation at the rate of 20% as claimed by the

claimant. Considering the sale instance, the location of the land and the
 Dilwale                                         6            31 and 37-fa-1257-08.odt


material available on record, I am of the view that the claimant would be

entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.66,000/- per acre for the

acquired land.

16.        In view of the above, the claimant is entitled to enhanced

compensation towards the acquired land at the rate of Rs.66,000/- per

acre. However, the compensation granted by the learned Reference Court

towards the trees and structures deserves to be set aside. Accordingly,

both the appeals deserve to be partly allowed. Hence, I pass following

order:-

                                     ORDER

      (i)      First Appeal No.1257 of 2008 and First Appeal No.1129
               of 2010 are partly allowed.

      (ii)     The judgment and award passed by the learned Reference
               Court in L.A.R. No.65 of 2005 is modified to the extent
               that the claimant shall be entitled to compensation for the
               acquired land at the rate of Rs.66,000/- per acre, together
               with all statutory benefits and interest admissible under
               the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

      (iii)    The award passed by the learned Reference Court
               granting enhanced compensation towards the trees and
               structures is hereby quashed and set aside.

      (iv)     Rest of the impugned award stands confirmed.

      (v)      Modified award be drawn accordingly.

      (vi)     Deficit Court fee be paid.

      (vii) The Office shall calculate the amount payable to or
Dilwale                                      7               31 and 37-fa-1257-08.odt


            recoverable from the claimant after giving due
            adjustment to the amount already paid and/or withdrawn
            by him.

     (viii) If, after such adjustment, any excess amount is found to
            have   been    received   by    the   claimant    towards
            compensation for the trees and structures, the claimant
            shall refund the said amount, together with applicable
            interest, within a period of ten weeks from today.

     (ix)   If the claimants fail to deposit the amount as aforesaid
            within ten weeks from today, the Collector, Osmanabad
            shall initiate appropriate proceeding to recover the
            amount, together with the interest at the prevailing bank
            rate in accordance with law and file a compliance report
            to this Court of the action taken.

     (x)    Conversely, if any amount remains payable to the
            claimant after adjustment, the same shall be paid in
            accordance with law.

     (xi)   Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.




                                           [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                     JUDGE