Bombay High Court
RAJWANTIBAI SURENDERSING THAKURversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The court held that the acquired lands are dry lands and the compensation awarded by the SLAO is correct, leaving no ground for interference.
Summary
The appellants challenged the award of compensation for lands acquired in 1987 for a percolation tank, contending that the lands were irrigated and that fruit‑bearing trees were not compensated. The State argued that the lands were correctly classified as dry and that the market value determined by the SLAO was proper. The court examined the acquisition process, noting the Gazette notification, declaration, award, and notice dates, and considered a sale deed from Gat No. 73 showing a price of Rs. 10,000 per acre (Rs. 250 per R). The judge found no record of the higher consideration claimed and held that even if the sale instance were applied, the resulting rate (Rs. 125 per R) was below the SLAO's award of Rs. 220 per R. Consequently, the court concluded there was no error in the reference court's decision. All first appeals were therefore dismissed without costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the acquired land should be classified as irrigated or dry for compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.
- Whether compensation for fruit‑bearing trees is payable in addition to land compensation.
- Whether the market value derived from a sale deed can be used to revise the compensation awarded.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 11, 12(2), 4, 6
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- dry land
- irrigated land
- valuation
- fruit‑bearing trees
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:36995
Dilwale 1 17-FA-1419-07.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
17 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1419 OF 2007
Gulabsing Bhimsing Rajput
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1421 OF 2007
Fulrajbai Durgasingh Thakur
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1422 OF 2007
Rajwantibai Surendersing Thakur
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1420 OF 2007
Ashabai Surendersingh Thakur
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra
...
Advocate for Appellants : Mr. A. R. Rathod
AGP for Respondent-State: Mr. S. N. Morampalle
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 11.08.2026
PER COURT :
1. As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1987, 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 06.10.2000 passed by the learned Civil
Dilwale 2 17-FA-1419-07.odt
Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad in LAR Nos. 230/1997, 880/1996,
227/1997 and 234/1997, whereby the learned Reference Court dismissed
their references.
3. The lands of the claimants were acquired for construction of
Percolation Tank at village Nanda, Tq. Soyegaon, Dist. Aurangabad.
Section 4 was published in the Government Gazette on 01.01.1987,
declaration under Section 6 was issued on 18.05.1989, award under
Section 11 was passed on 27.10.2004 and Notice under Section 12(2)
was given to the claimants on 30.01.1992. The LAO granted
compensation @ Rs.200/- per R for Group No. I and Rs.220/- per R for
Group No. II by treating the acquired lands as dry lands.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants/ claimants submits that the
claimants' lands were irrigated lands, but the SLAO and the Reference
Court treated the lands as dry lands. He submits that the learned
Reference Court granted very meagre compensation. Even in the acquired
lands, there were fruit-bearing trees, but no compensation was awarded
for the fruit-bearing trees. The claimants relied upon the sale instance
from Gat No. 73, whereby 1 Acre Bagayat land was sold for Rs.10,000/-
(Rs.250/- per R). The claimants examined the vendor of the sale deed,
who specifically stated that 1 Acre of Bagayat land was sold for
Rs.20,000/-, but only to pay lesser stamp duty, a lesser consideration was
shown. Therefore, he submits that, considering the sale instance, the
acquired land ought to have treated as irrigated land. However, the
Dilwale 3 17-FA-1419-07.odt
Reference Court treated the acquired land as dry land. He, therefore,
prays to allow the appeals.
5. Per contra, the learned AGP, Mr. Morampalle, supports the order
passed by the learned Reference Court and contends that the market
value has been rightly determined by the SLAO. He submits that the
testimony of vendor of sale instance that actual consideration for the land
was Rs. 20,000 is based upon imaginary fact which is not supported that
by evidence.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, with
their able assistance, I have gone through the entire record and
proceedings in all these matters. Though I do not find any sale deed on
record, it seems that the sale deed might have been placed on record and
the same might have been considered. In respect of the sale deed from
Gat No. 73, 1 Acre Bagayat land was sold for Rs.10,000/-, which would
fetch a rate of Rs.250/- per R. In the present case, the acquired lands are
dry lands. Even if the aforesaid sale instance is taken into consideration,
the rate of acquired land would come to Rs.125/- per R for the dry land.
Herein, the SLAO has already granted Rs.220/- per R.
7. Considering the above, I do not find any error so as to interfere
with the order passed by the Reference Court. Hence, all the first appeals
are dismissed. No order as to costs.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
Checking your session…