Bombay High Court
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, M S R T C DHULEversusSUNIL NAROTTAM PATIL and ORS.
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
Compensation for the acquired lands is to be fixed at Rs 75 per square metre, based on sale instance Exh 59 with a 50% deduction, and the award is modified accordingly.
Summary
The State acquired three parcels of land in Shahada for a bus stand and depot in 1992, awarding compensation of Rs 40‑50 per square metre. The claimants challenged the award under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, arguing the compensation was inadequate and that the land, being within municipal limits, had non‑agricultural (N.A.) potential. The reference court enhanced the rate to Rs 55 per square metre based on a distant sale (Exh 93). The acquiring body appealed, and the claimants filed cross‑objections, contending that a nearer non‑agricultural sale (Exh 59) should be the benchmark. The High Court examined four sale instances, held that Exh 59 was the appropriate comparable, applied a 50% deduction to arrive at Rs 75 per square metre, and modified the award accordingly, granting statutory interest under Sections 28 and 34 but not for the period from the original award to the present.
Issues considered
- What is the correct market value for compensation under the Land Acquisition Act for land within municipal limits having non‑agricultural potential?
- Which sale instances are comparable for determining compensation?
- Whether the reference court erred in relying on sale instance Exh 93?
- Entitlement of claimants to interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Act.
- Whether the acquiring body’s appeal should be allowed.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act — s. 11, 18, 28, 34, 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- market value
- non‑agricultural land
- municipal limits
- sale comparable
- Section 18
- Section 28
- Section 34
- appeal
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:43623
FA 1429/07 & Ors.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
5 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1429 OF 2007
THE DIVISIONAL CONT. M S R T C DHULE
VERSUS
ANIL NAROTTAM PATEL AND ORS.
...
WITH
X-OBJECTION (STAMP) NO. 6278 OF 2008
IN FA/1260/2008
YASINJAMAL KHAWAJA MATINODDIN KAZI
VERSUS
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQ. OFFICER AND ORS
…
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 134 OF 2025
IN FA/1429/2007
ANIL NAROTTAM PATIL AND ORS.
VERSUS
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ORS
…
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9135 OF 2022
IN X-OBJST/6278/2008
YASINJAMAL KHAWAJA MATINODDIN KAZI (DIED) THR LRS. SHAHIN MATIN
KAZI AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, DHULE AND OTHERS
…
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9136 OF 2022
IN X-OBJST/6278/2008
YASINJAMAL KHAWAJA MATINODDIN KAZI (DIED) THR LRS. SHAHIN MATIN
KAZI AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, DHULE AND OTHERS
…
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1340 OF 2008
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, M S R T C DHULE
VERSUS
SUNIL NAROTTAM PATIL AND ORS.
…
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1260 OF 2008
FA 1429/07 & Ors.
2
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER M S R T C DHULE
VERSUS
MRS. YASINJAMAL KHAWAJA MATINODDIN KAZI ANDORS.
…
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 132 OF 2025
IN FA/1340/2008
SUNIL NAROTTAM PATIL AND ANR
VERSUS
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQ. OFFICER AND ORS
…
Advocate for the X-objector/original claimants : Ms. Aishwarya C.
Deshpande h/f. Mr. C.R. Deshpande
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.N. Morampalle
Advocate for Respondent/acquiring body : Mr. Manoj D. Shinde h/f. Mr. D.S.
Bagul
…
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
Dated : September 22, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. As the acquisition proceedings are of the year 1992 heard finally with
the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. In all these appeals, the acquiring body assails the judgment and
award dated 23.3.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division,
Shahada in LAR Nos. 41, 37 and 36 of 1998, whereby the learned reference
court enhanced the compensation in favour of the respondents/original
claimants. Original claimants also seek further enhancement of
compensation for their acquired lands by filing cross objections.
3. The details of the lands of the claimants are as follows :-
Sr. FA No. LAR No. X-Obj. Area and Guat No. SLAO awarded
No. No. amount
1 1429/200 41/98 134/25 13500 Sq. Mtrs. Rs.45/- per Sq.
7 from Gat No. 181/2 Mtr.
2. 1340/200 37/98 132/25 13300 Sq.Mtrs. Rs.50/- per Sq.
8 from Gat No. 182/2 Mtr.
3. 1260/200 36/98 St. 10000 Sq.Mtrs. Rs.40/- per Sq.
8 6278/08 from Gat No. 181/2 Mtr.
FA 1429/07 & Ors.
3
The above lands of the claimants were acquired for construction of S.T. Bus
Stand and Depot at Shahada, District Dhule. Notification under section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act came to be published on 3.12.1992 and the award
under section 11 of the Act came to be declared on 17.10.1994. The SLAO
has granted compensation at the rate of Rs.40/- to 50/- per Sq. Mtr. as
mentioned above. After receipt of the amount under protest the claimants
filed references under section 18 of the Act by contending that the SLAO
has granted very inadequate compensation and claimed for enhancement.
Before the reference court, the claimants relied upon the four sale
instances, Exhs. 59, 60, 91 and 93. The reference court, relying upon the
sale instance Exh. 93 determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.55/-
per Sq. Mtr. and therefore, acquiring body assails the said order by filing
present first appeals.
4. The original claimants have also filed cross objections by contending
that the acquired lands were having N.A. potential and more particularly,
the acquired lands were already included in municipal limits of Shahada and
therefore, the claimants are entitled to receive rate for non agricultural land
and not for agricultural land. They contended that the reference court has
observed that the acquired lands were within municipal limits of Shahada
and were also having N.A. potential. Still the reference court has considered
the sale instance, Exh. 93 and determined the rate. Hence, they filed the
cross objections.
5. Mr. Manoj Shinde, learned counsel for acquiring body submits that the
reference court ought not to have relied upon the sale instance below Exh.
93 as the acquired lands and the land involved in sale instance, Exh. 93 are
situated far away from each other, more particularly, the father of the
FA 1429/07 & Ors.
4
claimants in one appeal has purchased the said land and therefore, it is
unsafe to rely upon the sale instance, Exh. 93. He submits that as per sale
instance, Exh. 93, one Acre land was sold for Rs.2,11,000/- in the year
1992 and therefore, as per that sale instance, the learned reference court
ought to have granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 52.5 per sq. mtr.,
however, despite of that the learned reference court has granted
compensation at the rate of Rs.55/- per sq. mtr. and therefore, he prays to
allow the appeal.
6. Per contra, Ms. Aishwarya Deshpande h/f. Mr. C.R. Deshpande learned
counsel for original claimants submits that before the reference court the
claimants relied upon four sale instances, Exhs. 59, 60, 91 and 93. She
submits that the learned reference court ought to rely upon sale instance
below Exh. 60 by which highest sale consideration was paid and the land
involved in Exh. 60 is adjacent to the acquired lands, but the learned
reference court has wrongly relied upon sale instance Exh. 93 and
determined the market value of the acquired lands and therefore, she
claimed that claimants are entitled to receive compensation as per the sale
instance, Exh. 60.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, with their
able assistance I have gone through the record and proceedings, impugned
judgment and award, the sale instances below Exh. 59, 60, 91 and 93. As
regards sale instance, Exh. 59 is concerned, land admeasuring 336.5 sq.
mtrs. was sold for Rs.50,500/- and the said plot was already converted into
non agricultural plot. As regards sale instance, Exh. 60 is concerned, the
N.A. plot admeasuring 322 sq. mtrs. was sold for Rs.1,32,000/-. As regard
sale instance, Exh. 91 is concerned, 81 R. land was sold for Rs.1,01,000/-.
FA 1429/07 & Ors.
5
As regards sale instance, Exh. 93 is concerned, the sale consideration is of
Rs.2,11,000/- for the land admeasuring 1 Acre. The learned reference court
relying upon the sale instance, Exh. 93 determined the compensation, but
infact there were other sale instances and those needs to be considered
while determining the correct market value of the acquired lands.
8. As regards sale instance Exh. 60 is concerned, it is dated 12.5.1992
by which 322 sq. mtrs. land was sold for Rs.1,32,000/-. The said land is one
and half k.m. away from the acquired lands and therefore, in my view, the
same can be considered as comparable sale instance. As regards the land
involved in sale instance, Exh. 91 is concerned, it was 3 k.m. away from the
acquired lands and as regards land involved in sale instance, Exh. 93 is
concerned, that was at the distance of 800 ft. from the acquired lands on
which the learned reference court placed reliance. But the fact remains that
the acquired lands were already within municipal limits of Shahada
Municipal Council. Therefore, the acquired lands were having N.A. potential
and therefore, this court is of the opinion that the sale instance, Exh. 59 can
be considered as comparable sale instance to determine the correct market
value of the acquired land. As per that sale instance, Exh. 59, 336.5 sq.
mtrs. land was sold for Rs.50,500/- and the rate comes to Rs.150/- per sq.
mtr. The said plot was non agricultural land and therefore, it can safely be
presumed that the acquired lands were also having N.A. potential as the
same is acquired for construction of Bus stand and Depot. Therefore, the
sale instance below Exh. 59, can be considered as comparable sale instance
for determining the correct market value, but by applying certain
deductions. Therefore, by applying 50% deductions the rate comes to
Rs.75/- per sq. mtr. and therefore, the appeals filed by the acquiring body
FA 1429/07 & Ors.
6
needs to be dismissed. Hence, the following order :-
ORDER
(i) The appeals filed by the acquiring body and the cross objections filed
by the claimants are partly allowed.
(ii) The claimants are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of
Rs.75/- per sq. mtr. for their acquired lands.
(iii) The claimants are also entitled to all statutory benefits including
interest under section 28 and 34 of the Act in accordance with the law laid
down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs.
Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (4) Mh.L.J. 457.
(iv) The claimants shall not be entitled to receive interest and other
statutory benefits for the delayed period, if any, i.e. from the date of award
till today.
(v) The claimants to pay deficit court fees, if any, on enhanced amount.
(vi) The impugned judgment and award of the reference court is modified
accordingly.
(vii) Rest of the award shall remain unaltered.
(viii) Pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of.
(ix) Claimants and/or legal heirs of the claimants are permitted to
withdraw the amount deposited by the acquiring body along with the
interest accrued thereon. At the time of payment, Registrar Judicial shall
verify all the requisite documents along with heirship certificate, if any.
( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )
ssc/
Checking your session…