Bombay High Court
PRADEEP MOHINIRAJ PAWAR, DIED THR. L.RS. PRAMODINI AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ANR
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The court held that pre‑notification sale instances are admissible for market‑value determination, compensation must be based on the date of notification, and the rates should be adjusted accordingly with a 10% annual escalation.
Summary
The appellants challenged the compensation awarded for lands acquired for the Jayakwadi Project, arguing that the reference court wrongly discarded a pre‑notification sale deed and failed to consider post‑notification sales, and that compensation was calculated from the date of possession contrary to precedent. The court examined the relevance of sale instances before and after the Section 4 notification of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and held that the pre‑notification sale (Exh. 17) is a valid comparable for market value while the post‑notification sale (Exh. 18) is not. It further found that compensation must be based on the date of notification, not possession, as established in State of Maharashtra v. Kailas Shiva Rangari. Accordingly, the court modified the compensation rates, granting higher amounts for irrigated and seasonally irrigated lands and ordering a 10% annual escalation for one year, along with statutory benefits and interest. The appeals were partly allowed, modifying the reference court’s award.
Issues considered
- Whether a sale deed executed before the Section 4 notification can be used as a comparable for determining market value of acquired land.
- Whether sale deeds executed after the Section 4 notification may be considered for market value.
- Whether compensation should be calculated from the date of possession or the date of notification under the Land Acquisition Act.
- What are the appropriate compensation rates for different categories of land (dry, seasonally irrigated, irrigated, pot‑kharab) in the present case.
- Whether a 10% per annum escalation of market value is applicable.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 18, 4, 6
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- market value
- Section 4 notification
- Section 6 declaration
- escalation
- irrigation categories
- statutory benefits
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:31932
FA 1783/12 & Ors.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
15 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1783 OF 2012
ANUSAYABAI KASHINATH BHINGARDE THR LRS VIMAL AND ORS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1785 OF 2012
SINDHUBAI BABANRAO ABUJ AND ORS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR
…
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1789 OF 2012
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7784 OF 2026 IN FA/1789/2012
SANJAY SHRIDHAR KHARDE AND ORS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR
…
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1786 OF 2012
RATANBAI NAMDEO ANBHULE AND ORS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR
…
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1790 OF 2012
PRADEEP MOHINIRAJ PAWAR, DIED THR. L.RS. PRAMODINI AND ORS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR
…
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1788 OF 2012
DAMODHAR GAJANAN KHARDE, DIED THR. L.RS. NANASAHEB AND ORS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR
…
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1787 OF 2012
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 507 OF 2026 IN FA/1787/2012
FA 1783/12 & Ors.
2
KASHINATH@KANIFNATH SHRIDHAR JADHAV
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR
…
Advocate for Appellants in all matters : Mr. Shinde Chandrakant K.
AGP for Respondent/State in all matters : Mr. D.R. Korde
Advocate for Respondent 2 in all matters : Mr. B.R. Survase
…
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
Dated : July 27, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1991, heard finally with
the consent of respective parties.
2. In all these first appeals, the claimants/appellants are aggrieved by
the judgment and award dated 3.5.2012 passed in respective LAR Nos.
509, 497, 508, 498, 495, 503 and 438 of 2010, by which the reference
court has enhanced the compensation.
3. The lands of the claimants were acquired as the lands were falling in
submergence of Jayakwadi Project from respective villages. Notification
under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be published on
14.11.1991. Declaration under section 6 was published in Gazette on
27.2.1992. Possession was taken over prior to section 4 notification.
Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) has passed the final award on
15.5.1994. Considering the quality of the acquired lands, the SLAO has
divided the acquired lands into two groups and has granted compensation
at the rate of Rs.18,000/- per H. for group I Jirayat lands, Rs.21,000/- per
H. for group II Jirayat lands, one and half times of Jirayat lands for group I
FA 1783/12 & Ors.
3
Bagayat lands and Rs.200/- per R. for Potkharab lands. Being aggrieved,
the claimants filed the above references under section 18 of the Act before
Collector for sending the same for determination of the market value and
the Collector forwarded the same to the concerned reference court. To
prove the case, the claimants have relied upon sale instances below Exhs.
17 and 18 which were discarded and the reference court has granted
compensation at the rate of Rs.36,000/- per H. for Jirayat land,
Rs.54,000/- per H. for Bagayat land and Rs.18,000/- per H. for Potkharab
land. Being aggrieved, the original claimants preferred the present
appeals.
4. Mr. C.S. Shinde, learned counsel appearing for original claimants
submits that the reference court ought not to have discarded the sale
instances below Exh. 17, which was prior to section 4 notification. As far as
sale instance below Exh. 18 is concerned, he submits that it was executed
after section 4 notification. He submits that even sale instance after
section 4 notification can also be considered and there is no straight jacket
formula for determination of market value of the acquired land for not
considering the sale instance after section 4 notification and the same can
also be considered by making necessary deductions and the court has to
consider whether the sale instances were executed by recording higher
prices and those are excessive and that was not the case of sale instance,
Exh. 18. But the reference court not considered the same. He submits that
the acquired lands are seasonally irrigated lands in the present matters. As
regards sale instance, Exh. 17 is concerned, he submits that the same is
for Jirayat/dry land and as per Exh. 17, 30 R. land from Gat No. 115 of
FA 1783/12 & Ors.
4
villageg Godhegaon was sold for Rs. 15,000/- i.e. Rs.500/- per R. i.e. Rs.
50,000/- per H. The said land was purchased by the adjacent land owner
of the acquired land and therefore, he submits that the reference court
ought not to have discarded the same. He submits that considering all
above, the appeals need to be allowed.
5. Per contra, Mr. B.R. Survase, learned counsel for acquiring body and
the learned AGP for the State submit that the learned SLAO has rightly
categorized the acquired lands as dry, seasonally irrigated and irrigated
considering the quality of the lands and has rightly granted compensation.
They submit that the learned reference court has rightly discarded the sale
instances below Exhs. 17 and 18 and as far as sale instance below Exh. 17
is concerned, it was for small piece of land and only 31 R.land was sold for
Rs.15000/- i.e. R. 500/- per R. They further submit that the reference
court has committed error while granting compensation from the date of
possession which is contrary to the law laid down by the Full Bench of this
Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016
(4) Mh.L.J. 457. They therefore prays to dismiss the appeals.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for respective parties, with their
assistance, I have also gone through record and proceeding. I have also
gone through the copy of the sale deed, Exhs. 17 and 18, dated
28.12.1990 and 9.3.1992, respectively. Sale deed, Exh. 18 is after section
4 notification by which the land admeasuring 81 R. from Gat No. 10/1 of
village Ghodhegaon was sold for Rs.1,04,000/- i.e. Rs. 1284/- per R. and
Rs. 1,28,400/- per H. and it was in respect of Bagayat land. Hence, the
FA 1783/12 & Ors.
5
same cannot be considered in the present case.
7. As regards sale deed, Exh. 17 is concerned, it was executed before
section 4 notification which was in respect of dry land admeasuring 30 R.
from land Gat No. 115 of village Godhegaon. As per Exh. 17 the above
land was sold for Rs.15,000/-. The said land was adjacent to the acquired
land. Therefore, in my view Exh. 17, can be considered as comparable sale
instance for determination of market value of acquired land as it was
executed before section 4 notification and the reference court ought to
have considered the same. As per Exh. 17, 30 R. dry land was sold for Rs.
50,000/- per H. In the present case, the reference court has granted rate
of Rs.36,000/- per H. for Jirayat land, Rs.54000/- per H. for Bagayat lands
and Rs. 18,000/- per H. for Potkharab lands. If rate of Rs.50,000/- per H.
is considered for dry land, naturally the claimants are entitled to get one
and half time more compensation for their seasonally irrigated land, and
double amount of Jirayat land for irrigated land. Therefore, the claimants
are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000/- per H. for
dry lands, Rs.75,000/- per H. for seasonally irrigated land and
Rs.1,00,000/- per H. for irrigated lands and Rs.25,000/- per H. for
Potkharab lands. The SLAO has treated lands of the claimants from First
Appeal No. 1785/2012 (LAR No. 497/2010) and First Appeal No.
1789/2012 (LAR No. 498/2010) as irrigated lands and therefore, they are
entitled to receive Rs. 1,00,000/- per H. for their acquired land and in the
rest of the land acquisition references the SLAO has treated lands of the
claimants as seasonally irrigated lands and therefore, the claimants from
other first appeals are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of
FA 1783/12 & Ors.
6
Rs.75,000/- per H. for their seasonally irrigated lands. The claimants are
also entitled for 10% escalation per year on the market value determined
by this court for one year.
8. As the reference court has granted compensation from the date of
possession of the acquired lands I hold that the same is contrary to the law
laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of
Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (4) Mh.L.J. 457. Hence, the
following order.
ORDER
(I) The appeals are partly allowed.
(II) The appellants/claimants from First Appeal No. 1785/2012 (LAR No.
497/2010) and First Appeal No.1789/2012 (LAR No. 498/2010) are entitled
to receive compensation at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per H. for their
irrigated lands and Rs.25,000/- per H. for Pot Kharab lands. In rest of the
appeals the claimants are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of
Rs. 75,000/- per H. for their semi irrigated lands and Rs.25,000/- per H.
for their Pot Kharab lands.
(III) The appellants/claimants are also entitled to 10% escalation per
year on the above market value of the acquired lands determined by this
Court for the period of one year.
(IV) The appellants/claimant shall be entitled to all consequential
statutory benefits under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
on the enhanced compensation.
(V) The claimants shall be entitled to interest and other statutory
benefits strictly in accordance with the law laid down by the Full Bench of
FA 1783/12 & Ors.
7
this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari.
(VI) The impugned judgment and order of the reference court is modified
to that extent.
(VII) Rest of the award is maintained.
(VIII) Civil Applications, if any, stands disposed of.
( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )
ssc/
Checking your session…