RAMESH GANPATRAO KORDE and ORSversusSTATE OF MAH and ANR

2026:BHC-AUG:43599

                                                                               FA 1433/2007
                                                    1

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                906 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1433 OF 2007

                               RAMESH GANPATRAO KORDE AND ORS
                                              VERSUS
                                STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
                                                 ...
                              Advocate for Appellant : Mr. S.B. Bhapkar
                             AGP for Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr. S.S. Dande
                                                 ...

                                   CORAM         : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                   Dated         : September 22, 2026

            PER COURT :-

            1.    As the acquisition proceeding is initiated in the year 1987, heard

            finally with the consent of learned counsel for respective parties.

            2.    By this appeal, the appellants/original claimants assails the judgment

            and award dated 4.11.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior

            Division, Osmanabad in LAR No. 630/1997 by which the learned reference

            court has enhanced the compensation, but not granted compensation as

            claimed by the claimants.

            3.    The land of the claimants admesuring 2 H. 70 R. from Block No. 340

            situated at village Wadgaon (Siddheshwar), Taluka and District Osmanabad

            was   acquired   for    the    construction   of   percolation   tank,   Wadgaon

            (Siddheshwar). Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was

            published on 16.7.1987. Possession of the acquired land was taken on

            30.7.1986. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) has declared the

            award on 4.8.1989 and has granted very meager compensation. After

            receipt of the compensation under protest, the claimants filed reference

            under section 18 of the Act for proper determination of the market value of
                                                               FA 1433/2007
                                     2

the acquired land. The claimants relied upon the two sale instances, Exh. 15

dated 12.9.1991 and Exh. 16 dated 7.2.1989 from village Shekapur. But as

those sale instances were executed after publication of notification under

section 4 of the Act, the learned reference court has not considered the

same. The reference court by relying upon the sale instances from the same

village and by considering the highest sale instance has determined the

compensation at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per H. As the inadequate

compensation was granted by the reference court, present appeal is filed.

4.    Mr. S.B. Bhapkar, learned counsel for the appellants/original claimants

submits that as the possession was taken over on 30.7.1986 and admittedly

no sale instance was executed in 1986 from the same village, therefore, the

claimants have relied upon the sale instances from adjacent village which

was at the distance of 1 k.m. He submits that even the post notification sale

instances can be considered to determine the market value of the acquired

land, but the reference court has wrongly discarded the same as the said

sale instances were executed after section 4 notification. He submits that

the acquired land is irrigated land and there was well in existence in the

acquired land, but the learned reference court has wrongly treated the

acquired land as Jirayat land. Therefore, he submits that though the sale

instance Exh. 15 was from the different village, the same can be relied upon

by applying certain deductions and therefore, prayed to enhance the

compensation.

5.    Per contra, Mr. A.D. Wange, learned AGP on behalf of the State

submits that it is not the case that no sale instance from village Wadgaon

(Siddheshwar) were available and the fact is that there were five sale

instances from the village from where present land was acquired and the
                                                              FA 1433/2007
                                       3

SLAO has considered the same and considering the highest sale instance,

the learned reference court has determined the compensation at the rate of

Rs.40,000/- per H. for acquired land. He submits that though there was

existence of well in acquired land, the crop pattern does not show that the

claimants were not taking any crops which suggests that the acquired lands

were irrigated lands.

6.    Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, with their

assistance, I have gone through the record and proceedings. The sale

instances, Exh. 15 is dated 12.9.1991 and the sale instance Exh. 16 is

dated 7.2.1989 and section 4 notification came to be issued on 16.7.1987

and therefore, admittedly both the sale instances were after post

notification and also from the different village.

7.    In this case, it is not the case of the claimants that from the same

village from where the lands were acquired, there were no sale instances

available. The possession was taken over in the year 1986 and the sale

instances prior to taking over the possession were available. The SLAO has

also considered the five sale instances from the same village and

determined the rate of compensation. Though before the SLAO there were

five sale instances, the reference court has relied upon the sale instance

dated 23.4.1986 which was from same village i.e. Wadgaon (Siddheshwar)

by which 81 R. land was sold for Rs.30,000/- and the rate comes to

Rs.37,000/- per H.      and the reference court by rounding off the amount

granted compensation at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per H. But the award of

SLAO Exh. 17 reveals that in the acquired land there was well and

therefore, it can safely considered that the acquired land is seasonally

irrigated land and therefore, this Court holds that the acquired land can be
                                                                       FA 1433/2007
                                           4

treated as seasonally irrigated lands and therefore, the claimants are

entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per H. for their

acquired land as the same was seasonally irrigated land. Hence, following

order is passed.

                                      ORDER

(i)     The appeal is partly allowed.

(ii)    The appellants/claimants are entitled to receive compensation at the

rate of Rs.60,000/- per H. for their acquired seasonally irrigated land.

(iii)   The    appellants/claimants   shall    be   entitled   to   interest   and   all

consequential statutory benefits under the provisions of the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894 on the enhanced compensation in view of the judgment of Full

Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva

Rangari, 2016 (4) Mh.L.J. 457.

(iv)    The claimant 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 the date of decision of this Court.

(v)     The claimant 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) Civil Application, if any, stands disposed of.



                                               ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )

ssc/