ANIL RAMCHANDRA JEJURKAR DECEASED THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

2026:BHC-AUG:42187

                                                     1
                                                                      FA 1801 OF 2018

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 1801 OF 2018
                          ANIL RAMCHANDRA JEJURKAR DECEASED THROUGH
                                         LEGAL HEIRS AND ORS.
                                                VERSUS
                                THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
                                                 WITH
                                  CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 833 OF 2021
                                          IN FAST/13960/2020
                         THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NANDUR MADHAMESHWAR
                                  OFFICE, VAIJAPUR, AURANGABAD
                                               VERSUS
                               ANIL RAMCHANDRA JEJURKAR AND ORS
                                                WITH
                                 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 834 OF 2021
                                         IN FAST/13960/2020
                      THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NANDUR MADHAMESHWAR
                                   OFFICE, VAIJAPUR, AURANGABAD
                                                VERSUS
                               ANIL RAMCHANDRA JEJURKAR AND ORS
                                                   …
                     Mr. A. D. Kasliwal, Advocate for Appellants/Claimants
                     Mr. B. V. Virdhe, AGP for Respondent No.1 – State
                     Mrs. Chaitali R. Kutti - Choudhary, Advocate for Respondent
                     No.2/Acquiring Body
                                                   …

                                             CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                             DATED : 8th September 2026

                     P.C. :-

                     .         Subject Matter :

                     a.        Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award dated

                     01.02.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,
                                  2
                                                       FA 1801 OF 2018

Vaijapur in Land Acquisition Reference No.222 of 2010,

the appellants/claimants have filed this First Appeal.

b.    Considering the short controversy arising in the appeal,

the matter is taken up for final disposal at the stage of

admission by consent of the parties.

c.    The    appellants'   land       comprised   in   Gut    No.98,

admeasuring 0.36 R, situated at village Vaijapur Tq. Vaijapur

Dist. Aurangabad was acquired by the respondent-acquiring

body for the construction of Left Canal for Narangi Medium

Project. The land acquisition proceedings were completed and

the award came to be passed. The total compensation

awarded was Rs.48,204/-. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the

appellants lodged a reference under Section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894.

d.    During the trial, the claimants relied upon two sale

instances at Exhibit 10 and Exhibit 11. Suffice to note, the first

sale instance was dated 05.05.2001 and the second sale

instance was dated 17.05.2001. The first sale instance was in

respect of 0.20 Guntha land, whereas the second sale instance

was in respect of 0.23 R land. Placing reliance upon these two

sale instances, the claimants claimed compensation at the rate

of Rs.7,500/- per R.
                                  3
                                                     FA 1801 OF 2018

e.    The Reference Court heard the parties and accepted the

evidence tendered by the claimants. However, while accepting

the sale instances for enhancement, the Reference Court

considered the subsequent sale deed dated 17.05.2001,

wherein lesser consideration was shown.

2.    Submissions on behalf of the Appellants/Claimants :

a.    Mr.   A.   D.   Kasliwal,       learned   Advocate   for   the

appellants/claimants would submit that when two sale

instances were before the Reference Court, the Reference

Court ought to have considered the sale instance which was

for higher consideration.

b.    He would further submit that the sale deed which was

executed earlier ought to have been taken into consideration,

wherein the consideration was shown at Rs.14,250/- per R.

c.    The second contention of Mr. Kasliwal is that although

the Court relied upon one of the sale instances produced by

the claimants, it still observed that the claim was filed for a

lesser amount. The Court could not grant an amount higher

than what was claimed.

d.    Thus, on these two counts, Mr. Kasliwal, learned

Advocate for the appellants/claimants prays for allowing the

First Appeal and for escalation of the enhancement.
                               4
                                                  FA 1801 OF 2018

3.    Submissions on behalf of the Acquiring Body :

a.    Mrs. Chaitali R. Kutti – Choudhary, learned Advocate

for the acquiring body would strongly oppose the appeal.

b.    She would submit that evidently the sale instances

relied upon by the appellants/claimants are subsequent to the

notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

c.    Considering the area covered by the sale instances, the

Reference Court ought to have relied upon the said sale

instances. She would submit that the acquiring body has also

filed First Appeal, which is tagged together challenging the

enhancement on these two counts.

d.    Mrs. Kutti submits that, considering that the sale

instances were post Section 4 notification, it ought to be held

that there was nothing on record to seek enhancement in the

compensation.

e.    In view of this, the SLAO was justified in not granting

compensation on the formula which she produces before this

Court from the office record. She would submit that, hence,

the award at the rate of Rs.1339/- per R stands justified.

f.    With this, Mrs. Kutti submits that the appeal filed by the

claimants be dismissed and the appeal filed by the acquiring

body be allowed.
                              5
                                                FA 1801 OF 2018

4.    Consideration :

a.    I have heard both the learned Advocates for the parties

at length.

b.    True that the sale instances produced by the claimants

in support of their claim for enhancement were post the

Section 4 notification. The Section 4 notification was

published in the Official Gazette on 09.11.2000 and, hardly

within six months therefrom, the sale transactions were

executed.

c.    The Reference Court relied upon the judgment rendered

by this Court in Chandrashekhar Vs. Land Acquisition Officer,

reported in 2012(3) Mh.L.J. 8, and observed that reliance

could be placed upon such sale deeds by deducting 10% of the

consideration annually.

d.    Thus, the Reference Court considered the sale deed at

Exhibit 11 deducting 10% per annum from the rate of

consideration under the said sale deed. I do not find that the

analogy applied by the Reference Court warrants interference.

However, I have reservation about considering Exhibit 11

instead of Exhibit 10.

e.    This is a piece of beneficial legislation. When two sale

instances are before the Court, it is expected that the Court
                              6
                                                 FA 1801 OF 2018

should opt for the one which is executed for higher

consideration.

f.    In view of this, I accept the contention of Mr. Kasliwal,

learned Advocate for the appellants/claimants that the

escalation ought to have been done by taking the rate of

Rs.14,250/- per R.

g.    Considering the sale instance at Exhibit 10 obviously,

the deduction applied by the Reference Court at the rate of

10% per annum would be applicable to the escalation placing

reliance upon Exhibit 10.

h.    Now, so far as the other issue in the matter is

concerned, in my view, the Reference Court erred in

restricting the compensation to the extent of the claim made

by the claimants in the reference proceedings.

i.    It is trite law that once the Court has arrived at a

conclusion that the claimants deserve a certain amount of

enhancement, the claimant must not be deprived of the

enhancement only for the reason that the claim was made for

a lesser amount.

j.    In such a situation, the enhancement must be granted at

the deserving rate directing the claimants to deposit the

additional court fees.
                                  7
                                                  FA 1801 OF 2018

k.    A beneficial reference can be made to a latest order

passed by this Court in First Appeal No.1937 of 2020. In the

said case too, this Court held the claimant therein entitled for

the enhancement as agreed by the Reference Court.

Declination by the Reference Court to grant the entitled

enhancement for want of appropriate claim was disapproved.

Reliance was placed on the observations made by the

Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Narendra and ors.

Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in 2017

INSC 882. At later part of paragraph No.2 of the judgment

identified the issue as below :

      Paragraph No.2
      …………………Notwithstanding the same, in-
      sofar as the appellants are concerned, the
      High Court has limited the compensation to
      Rs.115/- per square yards because of the rea-
      soning that the appellant had demanded com-
      pensation at that rate only and had paid the
      court fees also accordingly. Therefore, opined
      the High Court, it was difficult to allow com-
      pensation at a rate higher than the rate
      claimed by the appellants.

      Concluding paragraph Nos. 16 and 17 of the judgment
read thus :

      16) Simply because the appellants had paid
      court fee on the claim at the rate of Rs.115/-
      square yards could not be the reason to deny
                               8
                                                  FA 1801 OF 2018


      the compensation at a higher rate. This could
      be taken care of by directing the appellants to
      pay the difference in court fee after calculat-
      ing the same at the rate of Rs.297/- per square
      yards.
      17) In fine, the judgment of the High Court is
      set aside and these appeals are allowed hold-
      ing that appellants are also entitled to com-
      pensation at the rate of Rs.297/- per square
      yards. The difference in compensation along
      with other statutory benefits under the Act
      shall be calculated and paid to the appellants
      within a period of three months from today. It
      is also directed that the appellants shall make
      good in deficiency of court fee before the High
      Court. Appellants shall also be entitled to costs
      of these appeals.

      Thus, the appeal must succeed in view of the settled

guiding principles enunciated by the Honorable Supreme

Court (supra).

l.    In view of the above discussion, I find that First Appeal

No.1801 of 2018 filed by the claimants deserves to be

allowed. Hence I pass following order :

                          ORDER

     I.     The First Appeal is allowed.
     II.    The   claimants    shall   be   entitled   to
     compensation at the rate of Rs.12,825/- per R.
     III.   The acquiring body shall deposit the
     enhanced compensation before this Court within
     a period of six months from today, together with
     accrued interest thereon.
                               9
                                                   FA 1801 OF 2018

      IV.    The interest part shall be governed by the
      law laid down by the Full Bench judgment in the
      case of State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva
      Rangari, reported in 2016 (4) ALL MR 513.
      V.     The appellants/claimants shall not be
      entitled to the interest and statutory benefits for
      the delayed period.
      VI.    The appellants/claimants shall be entitled
      to withdraw the amount deposited with interest,
      without making any separate application for
      withdrawal.
      VII.   In view of allowing First Appeal No.1801
      of 2018 filed by the claimants, the First Appeal
      filed by the acquiring body which is tagged with
      the present appeal stands dismissed.
      VIII. While depositing the enhancement, any
      amount already deposited shall be adjusted.
      IX.    The appellants/claimants shall pay the
      requisite additional court fees on the enhanced
      compensation, if applicable.
      X.     Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand
      disposed of.



                                   ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )

PRW