Bombay High Court
DEORAM BHAVADU CHAUDHARI DIED THR LRS DIGAMBAR AND ANRversusTHE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER(1), UPPER TAPI PRAKALP HATNUR-1, JALGAON AND ANR
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The Reference Court's determination of market value at Rs.1,18,050 per hectare is correct and no further enhancement is warranted.
Summary
The appellants, heirs of deceased landowners, appealed against a judgment and award of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhusawal, which had enhanced compensation for their lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, based on a reference under Section 18. They argued that the market value determined by the Reference Court, derived solely from a single sale deed (Exhibit 15) dated 11‑08‑1982, was still inadequate and sought further enhancement. The State and the Special Land Acquisition Officer contended that the Reference Court had already applied the most relevant comparable sale and that no additional material justified a higher valuation. The High Court examined the principle that a comparable sale must have proximity in time and location, finding Exhibit 15, located in the same village, to be the appropriate basis and confirming the court’s calculations. The Court held that the Reference Court’s assessment of Rs.1,18,050 per hectare was correct and that the appellants had not produced any new evidence warranting further increase. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellants are entitled to any further enhancement of compensation beyond the market value determined by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
- Whether Exhibit 15 is the appropriate comparable sale for determining market value of the acquired land.
- Whether the Reference Court erred in its assessment of market value and statutory benefits.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 11, 18, 4
Subjects
- Land acquisition
- Compensation
- Market value
- Section 18 reference
- Comparative sale
- High Court
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:41869
34-FA-1526-2017.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
34 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1526 OF 2017
Kashinath Deoram Chaudhari (Died) Through
L.Rs. Sakhubai Kashibai Chaudhari (Dead)
Through L.Rs. Bhagwat And Ors
VERSUS
The Special Land Acquisition Officer(1),
Upper Tapi Prakalp Hatnur-1, Jalgaon And Another
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1527 OF 2017
Deoram Bhavadu Chaudhari (Died)
Through L.Rs. Digambar Rajaram Patil and Another
VERSUS
The Special Land Acquisition Officer(1),
Upper Tapi Prakalp Hatnur-1, Jalgaon And Another
……
Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate for Appellants
Mr. A.M. Phule, AGP for Respondent No.1-State
Mr. A.D. Pawar, Advocate for Respondent No.2
……
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 04 SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. These Appeals take exception to the common Judgment and Award
dated 05.03.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Bhusawal, in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.292 of 2014 (Old L.A.R.
No.881/2006) and 293 of 2014 (Old L.A.R. No.293/2006), whereby the
learned Reference Court partly allowed the References under Section 18 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) and enhanced the
compensation payable to the respective claimants along with the statutory
benefits.
34-FA-1526-2017.odt
2
3. The lands belonging to the respective claimants, situated at
village Singat, Taluka Raver, Distrct. Jalgaon, came to be acquired for
Rehabilitation of project affected persons of village Singat. The particulars
of the acquired lands are as under:
Sr. No. LAR No. Survey/Gat No. Area Acquired
1. 292 of 2014 59 (P) 97 R
2. 293 of 2014 59 (P) 97 R
3. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on
26.03.1983. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “the SLAO”)
passed the Award under Section 11 of the Act on 08.07.2003 and
determined the market value of the acquired lands at the rates Rs.45,112/-
per Hectare. The claimants, being dissatisfied with the market value
determined by the SLAO, accepted the compensation under protest and
sought references under Section 18 of the Act. Accordingly, the references
came to be made to the learned Reference Court.
5. Before the learned Reference Court, the claimants relied upon five
sale instances. The learned Reference Court, however, found that the sale
instance at Exhibit 15 dated 11.08.1982 was the relevant comparable
instance. It enhanced the market value of the acquired lands to
Rs.1,18,050/- per hectare and granted the consequential statutory benefits.
The claimants have therefore preferred the present Appeals seeking further
enhancement.
34-FA-1526-2017.odt
3
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the compensation
determined by the learned Reference Court is still inadequate and the
appellants are entitled to further enhancement. He submits that the sale
instance at Exhibit 15 dated 11.08.1982 ought not to have been treated as
the sole basis for determining the market value to the extent done by the
learned Reference Court. He, therefore, submits that the market value
deserves to be enhanced.
7. Per contra, the learned AGP for respondent No.1-State and learned
counsel for respondent No.2-submit that the market value determined by
the SLAO was based upon the material available before him. They submit
that the Reference Court has already granted substantial enhancement by
relying upon Exhibit 15 and by allowing escalation. According to them,
there is no further material to justify any additional enhancement. They,
therefore, pray for dismissal of the Appeals.
8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned
Judgment and Award as well as the record and proceedings.
9. The principal question is whether the claimants are entitled to any
further enhancement over and above the market value determined by the
learned Reference Court. For determining the market value on the basis of a
comparable sale instance, the sale transaction must have reasonable
proximity to the acquired land, both in point of time and in situation.
Among the five sale instances relied upon by the claimants, the learned
34-FA-1526-2017.odt
4
Reference Court found Exhibit 15 to be the most relevant instance.
10. Exhibit 15 is the sale deed dated 11.08.1982 and relates to land
situated in village Singat itself. The acquired lands are also situated in
village Singat, Taluka Raver. Thus, unlike the other sale instances relied
upon by the claimants, the sale instance at Exhibit 15 has the necessary
proximity in situation. The learned Reference Court has also found the land
covered by the said sale instance to possess the same potentiality as the
acquired lands. I see no reason to take a different view.
11. The sale instance at Exhibit 15 shows that out of 1.23 H.R. land, an
area of 41 R was sold for a consideration of Rs.44,000/-. The calculation
made on the basis of the said transaction is as follows:
Particulars Calculation Amount
Area sold 41 R = 0.41 Hectare —
Sale consideration — Rs. 44,000/-
Rate per hectare Rs.44,000 ÷ 0.41 Rs.1,07,317/-
10% increase Rs.1,07,317 × 10% Rs.10,732/-
Rate after increase Rs.1,07,317 + Rs.10,732 Rs.1,18,049/-
Rounded rate — Rs.1,18,050/- per Hectare
12. The learned Reference Court, therefore, assessed the market value at
Rs.1,18,049/- per hectare and rounded it off to Rs.1,18,050/- per hectare.
The mathematical calculation is correct.
13. It is also relevant that the learned Reference Court considered the
fact that the SLAO had before him several sale instances while passing the
Award. However, Exhibit 15, which related to land situated in village Singat
34-FA-1526-2017.odt
5
itself, was not given due consideration while determining the market value.
The Reference Court has corrected this aspect by relying upon the said sale
instance and granting the appropriate increase.
14. The other sale instances relied upon by the claimants are from
different villages and, therefore, do not have the same proximity in situation
as Exhibit 15. Once a genuine sale instance from the same village, having
comparable potentiality, is available, the learned Reference Court was
justified in treating it as the principal basis for determining the market
value.
15. Thus, the learned Reference Court has considered the relevant sale
instance, the location and potentiality of the land, and has also granted the
increase on the sale price before determining the market value at
Rs.1,18,050/- per hectare. The appellants have not brought on record any
material warranting a further enhancement.
16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the market value
determined by the learned Reference Court cannot be said to be inadequate.
The impugned Judgment and Award, therefore, does not call for any
interference. Therefore, the appeals deserve to be dismissed.
17. Both the First Appeals are dismissed.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
S P Rane
Checking your session…