MAROTI PUNDLIK KANODE AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:38666
                                                1 of 5                  903-FA.1642.2016



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                903 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1642 OF 2016

                                MAROTI PUNDLIK KANODE AND ANR
                                             VERSUS
                             THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
                                                ...
               Ms. Ranjana D. Reddy, Advocate for Appellants.
               Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for Respondent-State.
                                                ...

                                               AND
                                   FIRST APPEAL NO. 1649 OF 2016

                                     NAGORAO GUNAJI JATALE
                                             VERSUS
                             THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
                                                …
               Ms. Ranjana D. Reddy, Advocate for Appellant.
               Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for Respondent-State.
                                                ...

                                         CORAM :         SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                         DATE    :       19th AUGUST, 2026

               P.C.:-

               1.        First Appeal No.1642 of 2016 is Admitted.

               2.        Since the acquisition proceedings pertain to the year 2010,

               the appeals are heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates

               for the respective parties.

               3.        By the present appeals, the Appellants/Claimants are

               aggrieved by the judgments and awards dated 17.11.2015 and

               25.11.2015 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division,
                                 2 of 5                 903-FA.1642.2016



Nanded in LAR Nos.92/2012 and 116/2012.

4.        Brief facts of the present cases are as under:-

(i)    The land of the Claimants was acquired for Bye-Pass Road,

       Rahimpur, Ardhapur, Taluka Ardhapur, District Nanded.

(ii)   The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,

       1894 (for short, “the Act”), was published on 01.10.2010. The

       Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on

       21.04.2011. The possession was taken on 09.04.2011. The Notice

       under Section 12(2) of the Act was issued on 08.05.2012.

(iii) The Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “LAO”) passed the

       awarded on 17.04.2012 and awarded compensation @ of

       Rs.13,80,000/- per Hectare and Rs.5,52,000/- per Acre in First

       Appeal No.1642 of 2016, and @ of Rs.10,87,500/- per Hectare

       and Rs.4,35,000/- per Acre. The learned Reference Court

       awarded compensation @ of Rs.13,05,000/- per Hectare.

5.        Ms.   Ranjana    D.   Reddy,    learned    Advocate     for      the

Appellants/Claimants submits that the Claimants relied upon the sale

instance below Exhibit-14 in First Appeal No.1642 of 2016 and Exhibit-

13 in First Appeal No.1649 of 2016, whereby 20 R land was sold for

Rs.6,87,000/- (Rs.34,35,000/- per Hectare) on 11.02.2009. The

learned Reference Court refused to rely on the said sale instance

without assigning reasons thereto. The learned Reference Court merely
                                 3 of 5                  903-FA.1642.2016



applied 20% escalation to the market value determined by the LAO and

arrived at the rate of Rs.16,56,000/- per Hectare which is highly

inadequate. Therefore, she prays to enhance the compensation by

relying upon the sale instances at Exhibits-13 and 14.

6.        Per contra, Mr. D. R. Korde, learned AGP for the Respondent-

State in both the matters, submits that the learned Reference Court has

rightly discarded the sale instance, as the land covered by the said sale

instance was abutting the already existing Nanded-Hingoli Road, which

definitely fetched higher market value. Therefore, the said sale instance

cannot be relied upon, and hence, he submits that the learned

Reference Court has rightly determined the compensation.

7.        Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties

and with their assistance, I have gone through the copy of the record

and proceedings. In these appeals, the land admeasuring 50 R and 48

R, respectively, was acquired. The learned Reference Court erroneously

refused to rely on the sale instance below Exhibits-13 and 14, which

was from same village Ardhapur. The learned Reference Court without

considering the sale instances available on record, merely on the

ground that the market value in the sale instances was very high,

refused to enhance the compensation and it applied escalation of 20%

on the market value already determined the LAO, which in my opinion

is inappropriate.
                                   4 of 5               903-FA.1642.2016



8.          After going through the record and proceedings, I find that

there is no dispute about the fact that the land was acquired for the

Bye-Pass Road. The sale instance on which the Claimants have relied is

in respect of irrigated land and the land of the Claimants was also

agricultural land, therefore the same can be considered as a

comparable sale instance. As per the sale instance, the land was

abutting the Nanded-Hingoli Road, which is a State Highway, whereas,

in the present case, the land was acquired for the Bye-Pass Road.

Therefore, as the land covered by the sale instance fetched higher

market value. Hence, In my opinion, it is appropriate to apply a 50%

deduction to the market value in the sale instance i.e. Rs.34,35,000/-

per Hectare for determining the market value, whereby the amount

would come to Rs.17,17,500/- per Hectare. Hence, I proceed to pass

the following order:-

                                  ORDER

     (i)    The first appeals are partly allowed.

     (ii)   The Claimants are entitled to receive compensation @

            of Rs.17,17,500/- per Hectare (Rs.17,175/- per R) for

            their acquired lands and to that extent impugned

            awards stand modified.

     (iii) The Claimants shall be entitled to all statutory benefits

            including interest under Sections 28 and 34 from the
                                     5 of 5               903-FA.1642.2016



                date of award as per Full Bench Judgment of this Court

                in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari,

                reported in 2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457.

          (iv) Rest of the impugned awards passed by the learned

                Reference Court stand confirmed.

          (v)   Modified awards be drawn accordingly.

          (vi) Deficit Court fees be paid.

          (vii) Pending Civil Applications, if any, are also disposed

                of.

                                       (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

Tauseef