SHRIRANG GOVINDRAO BIRAJDARversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:43300
                                                                         31-FA-179-2010.odt
                                               1

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               31 FIRST APPEAL NO. 179 OF 2010

                                 Shrirang Govindrao Birajdar
                                           VERSUS
                             The State Of Maharashtra And Others

                                             ……
          Mr. Vivekanand V. Ingale, Advocate for Appellant
          Mr. A.D. Wange, AGP for Respondents No.1 and 2
                                              ……

                                        CORAM      : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                        DATE       : 16 SEPTEMBER, 2026
          PER COURT :

          1.     Heard learned counsel Mr. V.V. Ingale for the appellant and learned

          AGP Mr. A.D. Wange for respondent Nos.1 and 2.


          2.     By the present appeal, the appellant-original claimant takes

          exception to the Judgment and Award dated 01.10.2009 passed by the

          learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga in Land Acquisition Reference

          No.770 of 2005 (Old L.A.R. No.247 of 2001), whereby the learned

          Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired land to Rs.533/-

          per Are.


          3.     The land belonging to the claimant, admeasuring 1 Hectare 40 R out

          of Gut No.62, was acquired for the purpose of construction of Handral

          Percolation Tank, Handral, Taluka Omerga, District Osmanabad. The

          notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published
                                                                31-FA-179-2010.odt
                                     2

on 07.04.1994. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the Award

under Section 11 of the Act on 25.06.1996 and awarded compensation at

the rate of Rs.217/- per Are for the acquired land. The claimant accepted

the said amount under protest, reserving his right to claim enhancement in

compensation. Being dissatisfied with the amount awarded, the claimant

sought reference under Section 18 of the Act for determination of the proper

market value of the acquired land, contending that the acquired land was

irrigated land. The learned Reference Court, relying upon the sale instance

at Exhibit 25 relating to village Turori and after applying a deduction of

60%, determined the market value at Rs.533/- per Are. Being dissatisfied

with the quantum of compensation so determined, the claimant has

preferred the present appeal.


4.     Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claimant had

relied upon two sale instances, produced at Exhibits 24 and 25. Exhibit 24

relates to a sale transaction dated 07.04.1995 concerning 20 R land situated

at village Kolsur, Taluka Omerga, for a consideration of Rs.12,000/-. The

said sale transaction was not proved and, therefore, was rightly not relied

upon by the learned Reference Court. Exhibit 25 relates to village Turori and

was proved through Witness No.2, Gema Keshavrao Rathod, who deposed

that he had purchased 30 R land for Rs.40,000/-.


5.     Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, while relying upon

Exhibit 25, the learned Reference Court has committed an error in applying
                                                                  31-FA-179-2010.odt
                                      3

a deduction of 60%. According to him, such deduction is excessive,

unjustified and arbitrary. It is submitted that, at the most, a deduction of

10% ought to have been applied on the ground that the sale instance was

from a different village. It is further submitted that the acquired land was

irrigated land. According to the learned counsel, the fact that separate

compensation towards the well was awarded by the Special Land

Acquisition Officer itself indicates the irrigated nature of the acquired land.

Therefore, the learned Reference Court ought to have determined the

market value by treating the acquired land as irrigated land. On these

grounds, further enhancement in compensation is sought.


6.     Per contra, learned AGP Mr. A.D. Wange appearing for respondent

Nos.1 and 2 supports the impugned Judgment and Award. He submits that

both the sale instances relied upon by the claimant are from different

villages and, as has emerged in the evidence, the distance between the lands

covered by the sale instances and the acquired land is about 2 to 5 kms.

He submits that Exhibit 25 pertains to a transaction which took place in the

year 1996, whereas the notification under Section 4 of the Act was

published on 07.04.1994. It is further submitted that the purchaser under

Exhibit 25 was already owning land adjoining the land purchased by him on

both sides and, therefore, the transaction had its own special features.

According to the learned AGP, the learned Reference Court, after considering

these circumstances, rightly applied a 60% deduction and determined the
                                                                 31-FA-179-2010.odt
                                      4

market value at Rs.533/- per Are. He, therefore, submits that no further

enhancement is warranted and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.


7.     I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel

for the respective parties and, with their assistance, have gone through the

record and proceedings as well as the impugned Judgment and Award.


8.     The learned Reference Court has noted that there were as many as

17 sale instances relating to the same village. However, the claimant did not

rely upon those sale instances and instead placed reliance upon the sale

instances produced at Exhibits 24 and 25. Exhibit 24 relates to village Kolsur

and, since the said transaction was not proved, the same was rightly

discarded. Exhibit 25 relates to village Turori and was proved by Witness

No.2, Gema Keshavrao Rathod. Thus, Exhibit 25 was the only proved sale

instance available before the learned Reference Court for consideration.


9.     The learned Reference Court has also taken note of an important

distinguishing circumstance, namely, that the land covered by the sale

instance at Exhibit 25 was situated adjoining the National Highway. The sale

instance, therefore, could not be treated as a comparable instance reflecting

the value of ordinary agricultural land without making an appropriate

adjustment. Further, the transaction under Exhibit 25 was of the year 1996,

whereas the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on

07.04.1994.
                                                                 31-FA-179-2010.odt
                                      5


11.    These circumstances clearly distinguish the transaction under Exhibit

25 from an ordinary open-market sale instance to be directly adopted for

determining the market value of the acquired land. The learned Reference

Court, therefore, did not mechanically adopt the rate reflected in Exhibit 25,

but applied deduction of 60% before determining the market value of the

acquired land.


12.    Under the sale instance at Exhibit 25, 30 R land was sold for

Rs.40,000/-. On that basis, the value was worked out at approximately

Rs.1,33,300/- per hectare. After applying a deduction of 60%, the learned

Reference Court arrived at Rs.53,300/- per hectare, equivalent to Rs.533/-

per Are, and accordingly enhanced the compensation.


13.    The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that only

10% deduction ought to have been applied cannot be accepted in the facts

of the present case. The question is not merely whether the sale instance is

from a different village. The recited circumstances, namely, the subsequent

date of the transaction, the peculiar relationship of the purchaser with the

adjoining land and the prospective availability of irrigation facilities on

account of the percolation tank, were all relevant factors while assessing the

comparability of the sale instance. The learned Reference Court has

considered these factors and has consequently applied the deduction of

60%.
                                                                    31-FA-179-2010.odt
                                          6


14.        The contention that the acquired land ought to have been valued as

irrigated land also does not persuade me to interfere with the impugned

Award. The existence of a well and payment of separate compensation in

respect thereof, by itself, does not justify discarding the method adopted by

the learned Reference Court on the basis of the proved sale instance. The

learned Reference Court has considered the material available on record and

has determined the market value after making an appropriate deduction

from the rate reflected in Exhibit 25.


15.        On an overall consideration of the material on record, I find that the

learned Reference Court has assigned cogent reasons for relying upon

Exhibit 25 and for applying a 60% deduction before determining the market

value at Rs.533/- per Are. The appellant has not demonstrated any error in

the approach of the learned Reference Court warranting interference in

appellate jurisdiction.


16.        The First Appeal, therefore, being devoid of merit, deserves to be

dismissed. Accordingly, the First Appeal is dismissed.


17.        Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.




                                               [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                         JUDGE
S P Rane