Bombay High Court
RANGNATH BHANUDAS RUPNER AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The court partially allowed the appeals, fixing compensation at Rs 1,600 per rood for dry land and awarding interest under Sections 28 and 34, while confirming the rest of the award.
Summary
The appellants challenged a compensation award for land acquired in 1997 for a minor irrigation tank, arguing that the award undervalued the dry land because the reference court improperly excluded certain sale comparables. The court noted that possession was taken before the Section 4 notification and that a pre‑notification sale of seasonally irrigated land (Exh. 40) was relevant for determining market value. It held that the appropriate compensation for the dry land is Rs 1,600 per rood, while confirming the tree compensation awarded by the reference court. The court also modified the award to grant interest under Sections 28 and 34 from the date of the award, following the precedent set in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari. Consequently, the first appeals were partly allowed, the compensation adjusted, and the remainder of the award upheld.
Issues considered
- Whether sale instances made after the Section 4 notification can be considered for market value determination.
- Whether sale instances of land of a different nature (seasonally irrigated vs dry land) are comparable for compensation purposes.
- What is the correct market value per rood for the acquired dry land.
- Whether interest under Sections 28 and 34 should be awarded from the date of the award.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Land Acquisition Act — s. 28, 34, 4, 6
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- market value
- sale comparables
- interest
- Section 28
- Section 34
- dry land
- irrigation tank
- appellate court
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:35648
908-FA-1402-2008.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
908 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1402 OF 2008
Jalinder Shankar Tambare And Ors
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1405 OF 2008
Trimbak Prabhu Tambare And Ors
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1403 OF 2008
Rangnath Bhanudas Rupner And Ors
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
...
Mr. T. B. Bhosale for the Appellant.
Smt. A. S. Mantri, AGP for State.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 6 AUGUST 2026
P. C.:
1. As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1997, the Appeals are
being heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the respective
parties.
2. By these Appeals, the Appellants-original claimants are aggrieved by
the judgment and award dated 23rd June 2006, passed by the the Ad hoc
Shubham Page 1 of 5
908-FA-1402-2008.doc
Additional District Judge, Beed in LAR Nos.51, 52 and 55 of 2000, whereby
compensation to the extent claimed by the claimants came to be refused.
The land of the claimants was acquired for the purpose of minor irrigation
tank at village Bangarwadi. The notification under Section 4 was published
on 27th February 1997, declaration under Section 6 was published on 29 th
January 1998, the possession was taken on 26 th February 1996 i.e. prior to
notification under Section 4, the award was passed on 29 th September 1998.
The SLAO awarded compensation @Rs.210/- and 240/- per R. The
claimants claimed compensation @Rs.3000/- per R. The learned Reference
Court enhanced the same to Rs.500/- per R. Following lands were acquired
by the acquiring body:-
Sr. No. LAR No. Gat No. Area
1. 52/2000 840 89 R
841
2. 55/2000 830/EE 1H 41 R
830/A
833 & 834
3. 51/2000 830/A 1H 41R
830/AA
833
834
3. The learned counsel for the Appellants-original claimants submits that
the claimants have relied upon sale instances at Exh.39 to 41 which were
comparable with the acquired land. The claimants have further relied upon
certified copy of Index II at Exh.42, but the learned Reference Court
Shubham Page 2 of 5
908-FA-1402-2008.doc
erroneously discarded sale instance below Exh.39 on the ground that the
same was post notification sale deed. The learned Reference Court
erroneously discarded sale instances below Exhs.40 and 41 on the ground
that they pertained to seasonally irrigated land and irrigated land
respectively. He submits that the learned Reference Court ought to have
considered these sale instances by applying appropriate deductions as there
is no straight jacket formula that post notification sale instance cannot be
considered or land having different nature cannot be considered. Therefore
he submits that the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation and
prays to allow the Appeals.
4. Per contra, learned AGP for the State submits that the SLAO has
awarded adequate compensation which was enhanced by the learned
Reference Court and there is no further need to enhance the same. The sale
instances below Exhs.39, 40 and 41 were rightly discarded by the Reference
Court as they were not comparable with the acquired land for the reason
that they were different in nature. Therefore he prays to dismiss the First
Appeals.
5. Having considered rival submissions of the learned counsel and upon
going through the record and proceeding, it is clear that the possession was
taken prior to notification under Section 4. The claimants have produced
sale instances below Exhs.39, 40 and 41. The learned Reference Court has
rightly discarded sale instance below Exh.39 on the ground that it was post
Shubham Page 3 of 5
908-FA-1402-2008.doc
notification sale instance. Sofar as the sale instance below Exh.40 is
concerned, the same is dated 17th August 1996, whereby 81R seasonally
irrigated land from Survey No.327 from the same village Patoda was sold for
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.2469/- per R). The notification under Section 4 was
published on 27th February 1997, thus the said sale instance is immediately
prior to the notification and can safely be relied upon while determining
market value of the acquired land. As the acquired land is dry land, the
compensation for the same must be granted @Rs.1600/- per R.
6. Sofar as the enhancement with respect to the trees is concerned, I am
of the opinion that learned Reference Court has granted adequate
compensation for the same and no further enhancement is warranted.
7. The record reveals that the learned Reference Court has granted
interest under Section 28 from the date of notification. Therefore, the
impugned award warrants modification to that extent in view of the law laid
down by Full Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva
Rangari (2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457). Hence, I pass the following order:-
ORDER
i. The First Appeals are partly allowed.
ii. The claimants are entitled to compensation @Rs.1600/- per R
for dry land and to that extent impugned award stands modified.
iii. The claimants shall be entitled to the interest under Sections 28
and 34 from the date of award as per Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra)
Shubham Page 4 of 5
908-FA-1402-2008.doc
and to that extent impugned award stands modified.
iv. Rest of the award passed by the learned Reference Court is
confirmed.
v. Modified award be drawn accordingly.
vi. Deficit Court fee be paid.
vii. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]
Shubham Page 5 of 5
Checking your session…