Bombay High Court
GOVIND RAMCHANDRA PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ANR
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The court modified the compensation, granting Rs 20,000 per acre for the dry lands and Rs 30,000 per acre for the semi‑irrigated land, holding that the earlier reference is not binding but is a relevant factor and that land classification must be respected.
Summary
The appellants challenged a judgment and award dated 22 August 2007 that fixed compensation for lands acquired in Koregaon village for a minor irrigation tank. The original award valued the dry lands at Rs 20,000 per hectare, which the claimants argued was too low, citing higher sale transactions and a related reference (LAR No. 121 of 2004) that had awarded Rs 40,000 per acre for irrigated land in the same village. The court examined whether the earlier reference was binding and whether sale instances from nearby Omerga could be used for valuation. It held that while the earlier reference is not binding, it is a relevant circumstance, and that the classification of the lands (dry vs semi‑irrigated) must be considered. Consequently, the court partially allowed the appeals, modifying the compensation to Rs 20,000 per acre for the dry lands and Rs 30,000 per acre for the semi‑irrigated land, and ordered interest and statutory benefits as per the Land Acquisition Act.
Issues considered
- Whether sale instances from lands situated near Omerga town can be considered for determining market value of the acquired lands in Koregaon.
- Whether the valuation in Land Acquisition Reference No. 121 of 2004 is a binding precedent for the present case.
- Whether the classification of the acquired lands (dry vs semi‑irrigated) warrants different compensation rates.
- Whether the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 should be enhanced in view of the evidence.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 11, 18, 34, 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation enhancement
- market value determination
- precedent relevance
- land classification
- interest under Section 34
- statutory benefits
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:38526
901-FA-1741-07 ch (+2).odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
901 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1741 OF 2007
Govind Ramchandra Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1676 OF 2007
Subhash Ramchandra Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1675 OF 2007
Ramchandra Bapurao Patil (Died)
Through L.Rs. Govind Ramchandra Patil And Ors
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
......
Mr. Parag V. Barde, Advocate for the Appellants in all FAs
Mr. S.S. Dande, AGP for Respondent No.1- State
......
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 21 AUGUST, 2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. By these Appeals, the appellants-original claimants take exception to
the common Judgment and Award dated 22.08.2007 passed by the learned
Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga in Land Acquisition Reference
Nos.112 of 2004, 123 of 2004 and 124 of 2004, whereby the learned
901-FA-1741-07 ch (+2).odt
2
Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired lands to
Rs.20,000/- per Hectare. The claimants seek further enhancement in
compensation.
3. The lands belonging to the respective claimants, situated at village
Koregaon, Taluka Omerga, District Osmanabad, were acquired for the Minor
Irrigation Tank, Koregaon. The particulars of the acquired lands are as
under:
Sr.No. LAR No. Gat/Survery No. Area Acquired
1 122 of 2004 48/1 1 H 31 R
2 123 of 2004 13/2 3 H 16 R out of 22R
3 124 of 2004 46/2 2 H 47 R
4. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(for short, “the Act”) was published on 29.06.1988. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer thereafter passed an award under Section 11 of the Act
on 07.03.1992 and determined the market value of the acquired lands at
different rates depending upon their classification. The claimants, being
dissatisfied with the compensation so determined, accepted the same under
protest and sought references under Section 18 of the Act.
5. Before the Reference Court, the claimants relied upon certain sale
instances to contend that the market value of the acquired lands was much
higher than that determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The
Reference Court, however, did not accept the said sale instances in their
901-FA-1741-07 ch (+2).odt
3
entirety and ultimately enhanced the compensation to Rs.20,000/- per
Hectare for the acquired dry lands.
6. Learned counsel Mr. P.V. Barde. for the appellants submits that the
sale instances relied upon by the claimants were also considered by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer while determining the compensation. The
Reference Court, however, discarded the said sale instances mainly on the
ground that the lands covered by those sale instances were situated near
Omerga town and were at a distance from the acquired lands. He submits
that such distinction was not justified, particularly when the lands were
situated in the same vicinity and the sale instances were otherwise
comparable.
7. Learned counsel further submits that in Land Acquisition Reference
No.121 of 2004, concerning acquisition of lands from the same village,
under the same notification and for the same Koregaon Minor Irrigation
Project, the Reference Court had relied upon the very same sale instances
and had determined the compensation at Rs.40,000/- per Acre for irrigated
land. According to him, when the lands involved in the present appeals are
also from the same village, acquired under the same notification and for the
same project, there is no justification for adopting a substantially different
valuation. He, therefore, submits that the appellants are entitled to
appropriate enhancement in the compensation.
901-FA-1741-07 ch (+2).odt
4
8. Learned AGP for the respondent-State supports the impugned
Judgment and Award. He submits that the Reference Court, while
considering the evidence in the present References, has given cogent reasons
for not relying upon the sale instances relied upon by the claimants.
According to him, the sale instances pertained to lands situated near
Omerga town and could not automatically be applied to the acquired lands
situated at village Koregaon. He further submits that the Judgment and
Award in LAR No.121 of 2004 cannot be treated as a binding precedent and,
therefore, the claimants ar not entitled for further enhancement merely on
the basis of the rate granted in another Reference.
9. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel
for the respective parties and, with their able assistance, have gone through
the Record and Proceedings and the impugned Judgment and Award.
10. It is not in dispute that the lands involved in the present Appeals are
situated in village Koregaon and were acquired under the same notification
dated 29.06.1988 for the same Minor Irrigation Tank, Koregaon. It is also
not in dispute that in LAR No.121 of 2004, arising out of the same
acquisition, the Reference Court considered the sale instances relied upon by
the claimants and granted compensation at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per Acre
for irrigated land.
11. The order passed in another Land Acquisition Reference may not, by
901-FA-1741-07 ch (+2).odt
5
itself, constitute a binding precedent. However, where the acquisition is
under the same notification, the lands are situated in the same village and
the purpose of acquisition is also the same, the valuation adopted in a
connected Reference is certainly a relevant circumstance for determining the
market value, particularly when there is no material brought on record to
demonstrate any substantial distinguishing feature affecting the value of the
lands.
12. In the present case, the Reference Court has discarded the sale
instances principally on the ground of their distance from the acquired
lands. However, the very same sale instances were considered in the
connected Reference arising from the same acquisition and relating to lands
situated in the same village. The distinction sought to be drawn on the basis
of distance from Omerga town, in the facts of the present case, does not
appear sufficient to justify a completely different approach in respect of
lands acquired under the same notification for the same project.
13. At the same time, the lands involved in the present Appeals are not
all of the same classification. The lands covered by LAR Nos.122 and 123 of
2004 are dry lands, whereas the land covered by LAR No.124 of 2004 is
semi-irrigated. Therefore, the rate granted for irrigated land in LAR No.121
of 2004 cannot mechanically be applied to all the lands involved in the
present Appeals. The nature and classification of the respective lands have
also to be kept in view.
901-FA-1741-07 ch (+2).odt
6
14. Having regard to the nature of the acquisition, the material on
record, the valuation adopted in the connected Reference and the
classification of the lands, I am of the view that the compensation awarded
by the Reference Court requires modification to the extent indicated below.
The claimants in LAR Nos.122 and 123 of 2004 would be entitled to
compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per Acre for their acquired dry
lands, whereas the claimant in LAR No.124 of 2004 would be entitled to
compensation at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per Acre for the acquired semi-
irrigated land.
15. In view of the above discussion, the Appeals deserve to be partly
allowed. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
(i) The First Appeals are partly allowed.
(ii) The common Judgment and Award dated 22.08.2007 passed by the
learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga in Land Acquisition
Reference Nos.122 of 2004, 123 of 2004 and 124 of 2004 is modified to the
following extent:
(a) The claimants in LAR No.122 of 2004 (FA/1741/2007)
and LAR No.123 of 2004 (FA/1676/2007) shall be entitled to
compensation for their acquired dry lands at the rate of
Rs.20,000/- per Acre.
901-FA-1741-07 ch (+2).odt
7
(b) The claimant in LAR No.124 of 2004 (FA/675/2007)
shall be entitled to compensation for the acquired semi-irrigated
land at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per Acre.
(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 claimants shall be entitled to interest under Section 34 of the Act
strictly in accordance with the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court
in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457.
(v) The claimants shall pay the deficit court fees, if any.
(vi) Save and except the modification in the quantum of compensation as
aforesaid, the common Judgment and Award dated 22.08.2007 shall remain
unaltered.
(vii) The modified award be drawn accordingly.
(viii) Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
S P Rane
Checking your session…