Bombay High Court
THE STATE OF MAH AND ORSversusSHANKAR SADASHIV PAWAR L.RS. SUREKHA AND ORS
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appeal is dismissed; the reference court’s award of Rs 40,000 per acre and compensation for trees and structures is upheld.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the award of compensation granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for land acquired in 1993 for the Sarvadi Medium Project. The original award fixed compensation at Rs 6,800 per acre, which the reference court enhanced to Rs 40,000 per acre, also awarding amounts for fruit‑bearing trees and structures based on a valuer’s report. The State contended that the enhancement was excessive and sought reversal of the award. The High Court examined the 7/12 extract of the land, the valuer’s report, and the reference court’s reasoning, finding that the compensation for trees and structures was reasonable. It concluded that there was no error in the reference court’s determination of the compensation rate. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, and the pending civil application, if any, was also disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the reference court erred in enhancing the compensation rate from Rs 6,800 to Rs 40,000 per acre.
- Whether compensation for fruit‑bearing trees and structures was correctly awarded based on the valuer’s report.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- valuation
- fruit bearing trees
- reference court
- appeal
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:31945
FA 142/10
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
71 FIRST APPEAL NO. 142 OF 2010
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2345 OF 2009 IN FA/142/2010
THE STATE OF MAH AND ORS
VERSUS
SHANKAR SADASHIV PAWAR L.RS. SUREKHA AND ORS
...
AGP for Appellants/State : Mr. S.S. Dande
Advocate for Respondents 1 to 3 : Mr. A.N. Hajare h/f. Mr. B.K. Pawar
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
Dated : July 27, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. As the acquisition proceeding was initiated in the year 1993, heard
finally with the consent of learned counsel for respective parties.
2. The present appeal arises out of judgment and order dated
29.4.2008 passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga
in LAR No. 846/2005.
3. The lands of the claimants situated at village Naichakur, Taluka
Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad were acquired for Sarvadi Medium Project,
which are as follows :-
Sr. Name of Gat No. Area Award Demand
No. the Party passed on
1 In LAR Sy. No. 84 R. 11/2/98 Rs.16,30,628/-
No. 772/74/1 22 R. Restricted his claim
846/2005 72/74/3 20 R. up to Rs.10,00,000/-
72/74/5 72 R.
6/6/1 5R in his
6/6/4 1/3
share
The notification under section 4 was issued. Award was passed by the
FA 142/10
2
Special Land Acquisition Officer on 11.2.1998 and has granted rate of
Rs.17,000/- per H. and Rs. 6,800/- per Acre. The learned reference court
enhanced the same at the rate of Rs.40,000/-per Acre. Being aggrieved,
the State has preferred the present appeal.
4. Having heard the learned AGP for the appellant, I have gone through
the record with the assistance of learned AGP. The learned reference court
has granted 6800/- per Acre. 7/12 extract of the acquired land shows that
there were fruit bearing trees and the learned reference court relied upon
valuer’s report for granting compensation for fruit bearing trees and also
for structure. After going through the same, I find that the learned
reference court has rightly relied upon the valuer’s report and has granted
compensation for fruit bearing trees and for structure. The 7/12 extract
also shows that the reference court has granted reasonable compensation.
The land was acquired in the year 1993. Considering the above, I do not
find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment and award passed
by the reference court. The first appeal is devoid of merits and the same is
dismissed. Pending civil application, if any, also stands disposed of.
( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )
ssc/
Checking your session…