DURGAJI BHIVAJI PAWAR AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAH

2026:BHC-AUG:43624

                                                                             FA 161/11
                                                  1

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                908 FIRST APPEAL NO. 161 OF 2011

                                DURGAJI BHIVAJI PAWAR AND ANR
                                              VERSUS
                                   THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                                 ...
                           Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Mahesh S. Bhosale
                             AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. D.R. Korde
                                                 ...

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

            PER COURT :-

            1.    As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1984 heard finally with

            the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.

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

            and award dated 31.8.1994 passed by the learned 3 rd Additional District

            Judge, Beed in in LAR No. 630/1987, whereby the learned reference court

            enhanced the compensation in favour of the appellants/original claimants.

            However, according to the claimants, the same is inadequate and therefore,

            the present appeal is filed seeking further enhancement of compensation for

            their acquired lands.

            3.    The lands of the claimants admeasuring 6 H. 45 R. from Survey No.

            135 situated at village Kanhobachiwadi was acquired for percolation tank of

            village Kanhobachiwadi. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition

            Act came to be published on 23.2.1984 and the award under section 11 of

            the Act came to be declared on 13.4.1987. The SLAO has determined the

            compensation at the rate of Rs. 62/- per R. Possession was taken over on

            13.4.1982. After receipt of the amount under protest, the claimants filed
                                                                      FA 161/11
                                       2

reference under section 18 of the Act by contending that the SLAO has

awarded very inadequate compensation and claimed for enhancement of

compensation. Before the reference court, the claimants relied upon the

sale instance, dated 30.8.1983 from land Survey No. 169 by which 1.2 acre

land was sold for consideration of Rs.15000/- i.e. Rs.357.14 per R.

However, the learned reference court relying upon the sale instance from

Survey No. 144 dated 5.8.1981 determined the compensation at the rate of

Rs.95/- per R. Therefore, being dissatisfied with the same, the present

appeal is filed.

4.        Mr. Mahesh Bhosle, learned counsel for the appellants/original

claimants submits that earlier village Kanhobachiwadi was part of Shirur

revenue village and when the land was acquired, Kanhobachiwadi was not

shown as separate revenue village and that was shown as part of revenue

village of Shirur. He tenders the mutation entry No. 1 of village

Kanhobachiwadi, which is taken on record, and contended that up to the

year 1989 separate revenue village of Kanhobachiwadi was not declared and

the SLAO has also considered the sale instances from village Shirur and

village     Kanhobachiwadi,   which   have   no   separate   survey   numbers.

Therefore, all the sale instances reflected that they are from village Shirur.

Before the reference court, the claimants relied upon the sale instance

dated 30.8.1983 which was from village Kanhobachiwadi in respect of land

from Survey No. 169 by which total 1.2 Acre land was sold for Rs.15,000/-.

He therefore, submits that claimants are entitled to receive compensation

as per the sale instance dated 30.8.1983. However, without considering the

same, the reference court has determined the compensation at very meager

rate.
                                                                               FA 161/11
                                         3

5.    Per contra, Mr. D.R. Korde, learned AGP for State submits that the

sale instance dated 30.8.1983 was in respect of land from Shirur bearing

Survey No. 169 and the land involved in the present matter was acquired

for the above project from Survey No. 135 and the distance between the

Shirur and Kanhobachiwadi is more than 4-5 k.m. and therefore, he submits

that the reference court has relied upon the sale instance from Survey No.

144 dated 5.8.1981 and determined the compensation at the rate of

Rs.95/- per R. and therefore, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

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

assistance I have gone through the record and proceedings. There is no

dispute about the fact that the land is acquired from Gat No. 135 of village

Kanhobachiwadi.    It   was   brought    to       my   notice    that     up   to    1989

Kanhobachiwadi    was   not   declared       as   separate      revenue    village    and

therefore, prior to 1989 that was part of revenue village Shirur and

therefore, though the sale instance is from survey No. 169 of Shirur and

after 1989 the said survey number was included in revenue village of

Kanhobachiwadi, therefore, the sale instance dated 30.8.1983 can be safely

considered for determination of market value of acquired land in the present

matter which is from Survey No. 169 was from village Kanobachiwadi. Here

in this case as per sale deed dated 30.8.1983 area of land admeasuring 1.2

Acre was sold for Rs.15,000/- and it is from the same village and therefore,

the same can be considered as comparable sale instance. Therefore, I find

that the sale instance dated 30.8.1983 can be considered as comparable

sale instance and as per the sale instance rate comes to Rs. 357.14 per R.

Therefore, by rounding it off, I hold that claimants are entitled to Rs. 360/-

per R. for their acquired lands. In view of the above, following order is
                                                                          FA 161/11
                                         4

passed :-

                                   ORDER

(i)      The appeal is partly allowed.

(ii)     The   claimants/appellants      are    entitled   to   receive   enhanced

compensation at the rate of Rs.360/- per R. for their acquired land.

(iii)    The claimants shall be entitled to all consequential statutory benefits

on the enhanced compensation in accordance with the provisions of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

(iv)     The claimant shall be entitled to interest under Section 34 of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, strictly in accordance with the principles laid

down by the Full Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Kailas Shiva

Rangari, 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457.

(v)      The claimant shall not be entitled to the interest for the period of

delay, if any, condoned by this Court caused in filing the present appeal.

(vi)     The claimant shall pay the deficit Court-fees, if any.

(vii)    Rest of the judgment and award passed by the learned Reference

Court shall remain unaltered.

(viii)   The modified award be drawn accordingly.

(ix)     Pending Civil Application, if any, stands disposed of.



                                               ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )

ssc/