Bombay High Court
SUNIL BALAJI ATNUREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
- Bench
- SHAILESH P BRAHME
Holding
In the absence of contra evidence, the private valuer's report for an acquired house property should be accepted in entirety, and the Reference Court's marginal enhancement instead of accepting the valuer's report is patently illegal.
Summary
This first appeal challenged the Reference Court's judgment and award dated 03.05.2019 in L.A.R. No. 385 of 2012, seeking enhancement of compensation for an acquired house property in village Itgyal, Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded, acquired for the Lendi project. The notification under Section 4 was issued on 03.05.2007 and the award under Section 11 was passed on 27.08.2010; the S.L.A.O. granted Rs. 5,92,494 and the Reference Court enhanced compensation by Rs. 2,36,997. The appellant relied on a private valuer's report, marked Exhibit 27, valuing the property at Rs. 14,84,629, and the acquiring body led no contra evidence. The Court observed its consistent view that for acquisition of house property, the private valuer's report should be accepted, and the Reference Court committed patent illegality by granting only a marginal enhancement instead of accepting the valuer's report in entirety. Relying on decisions in Kashinath and Ramesh Patil, the Court allowed the appeal partly and awarded Rs. 14,84,629 as compensation. The appellant was also held entitled to interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act in view of the Full Bench decision in Kailash Shiva Rangari, while the impugned award was otherwise left unaltered and the appellant was directed to pay deficit court fees.
Issues considered
- Whether the Reference Court erred in not accepting the private valuer's report in its entirety for determining compensation for the acquired house property?
- Whether the appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 14,84,629 based on the private valuer's report?
- Whether the Reference Court's enhancement of only 40% instead of accepting the valuer's report was illegal?
- Whether the appellant is entitled to interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act?
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act — s. 11, 28, 34, 4
Subjects
- Land Acquisition
- Compensation
- House Property
- Private Valuer Report
- Enhancement
- Parity
- Interest
- Reference Court
- Lendi Project
- Section 28
- Section 34
- Deficit Court Fees
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:6696
1 fa 1457.25
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1457 OF 2025
Sunil Balaji Atnure .. Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents
Ms. Laxmi R. Thakur, Advocate h/f Shri Laxmikant C. Patil,
Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri S. V. Hange, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri Vinayak P. Narwade, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3.
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2026.
FINAL ORDER :
. Appellant is questioning judgment and award dated
03.05.2019 passed by the Reference Court in L. A. R. No. 385 of
2012 and seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground of
parity.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant
that this Court has been taking consistent view in case of
acquisition of house property to accept private valuer’s report for
awarding the compensation. The Reference Court only granted
enhancement to the extent of 40% instead of accepting the
valuer’s report.
3. The submissions of the appellant are contested by the
respondents. It is submitted that no case is made out for
enhancement and adequate compensation has already been
2 fa 1457.25
granted by the Reference Court.
4. The acquisition of the house property is for Lendi project
and the property is from village Itgyal, Tq. Mukhed, Dist.
Nanded. The notification under Section 4 was issued on
03.05.2007 and award under Section 11 was passed on
27.08.2010.
5. Following are the material particulars:
L.A.R. No. & First House No. Compen. Compen. Valuation and
Date of Appeal No. & Area granted by enhanced by Exhibit No. of
Decision acquired S.L.A.O. the Reference valuation
Court. report.
385/2012 1457/2025 Old H. No. 384 Rs. 5,92,494/- Rs. 2,36,997/- Rs. 14,84,629/-
03.05.2019 & 25 Exh. No. 27
New H. No.
224 & 273
638 Sq. Mtrs
6. Appellant has adduced evidence of private valuer and his
report is proved and marked as Exhibit 27. The valuation is
shown to be of Rs. 14,84,629/-. There is no contra evidence
adduced by the respondent – acquiring body. This Court has been
taking consistent view in accepting the report of the private
valuer for enhancing the compensation.
7. A useful reliance can be had to following judgments of the
of this Court :
(i) Kashinath s/o Nagnth Vs. State of Maharashtra in
First Appeal No. 2460/2021, decided on 13.07.2022.
3 fa 1457.25
(ii) Ramesh s/o Govindrao Patil Vs. State of
Maharashtra, in First Appeal No. 1814/2023, decided
on 18.12.2025.
8. The Reference Court has committed patent illegality in
awarding the compensation marginally instead of accepting the
report of private valuer in entirety. I, therefore, pass following
order.
ORDER
A. The first appeal is allowed partly.
B. The appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.
14,84,629/- for the acquired house property.
C. The appellant shall be entitled to receive interest U/Sec. 28
and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act in view of the judgment of the
Full Bench of this Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs.
Kailash Shiva Rangari reported in [2016 AIR (Bom.)141] .
D. Save and except above, the impugned judgment and award
shall remain unaltered.
E. The appellant shall pay the deficit court fees.
F. Award be drawn up accordingly.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]
bsb/Feb. 26
Checking your session…