Bombay High Court
NAGORAO GUNAJI JATALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The High Court partially allowed the appeals, fixing compensation at Rs.17,17,500 per hectare (a 50% deduction from the comparable sale price) and modifying the awards.
Summary
The appellants challenged the compensation awarded for land acquired for a bypass road in Nanded, arguing that a prior sale of similar agricultural land in the same village should be used to determine market value. The trial court had applied a 20% escalation to the Land Acquisition Officer's valuation, rejecting the sale evidence without reasoning. The State contended that the sale land abutted a state highway and thus fetched a higher price, making it unsuitable for comparison. The High Court held that the sale instance was comparable, but because it involved land adjoining a state highway, a 50% deduction from the sale price was appropriate, resulting in a compensation of Rs.17,17,500 per hectare. The court partially allowed the appeals, modified the awards accordingly, and granted statutory benefits including interest under Sections 28 and 34.
Issues considered
- Whether the sale of similar agricultural land can be considered for determining market value under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
- Whether the higher value of land adjoining a state highway precludes its use as a comparable sale.
- Appropriate method of adjusting the sale price (deduction or escalation) for compensation calculation.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 12(2), 28, 34, 4, 6
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- market value
- comparable sale
- escalation
- interest
- statutory benefits
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:38667
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
Checking your session…