Bombay High Court
STATE OF MAHAversusCHHABIBAI RAMSING NAIK
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appeal is dismissed because the issue of market value and compensation has already been settled by a binding Division Bench decision.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed a 2002 judgment of the Additional District Judge, Jalgaon, which had enhanced compensation for land acquired from the deceased Chhabibai Ramsing Naik, setting the market value at Rs.4,00,000 per hectare. The State argued that the enhancement was unjustified, while the claimant supported the award. The High Court examined the submissions and noted that the matter had already been decided by a Division Bench in Special Land Acquisition Officer (III), Jalgaon & Another v. Bhagwat Vitthal Sonwane (2009 4 Mh.L.J. 308), which had fixed the market value for similar lands. Relying on that binding precedent, the Court found no need to re‑examine the compensation quantum. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as it raised no fresh issue.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate market value and compensation for the acquired Bagayat land?
- Whether the Additional District Judge was justified in enhancing the compensation awarded to the claimant?
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- market value
- appeal
- precedent
- binding decision
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:43019
4-FA-1833-2010.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
4 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1833 OF 2010
State Of Maharashtra
VERSUS
Chhabibai Ramsing Naik (Deceased)
Through L.Rs. Chhalobai W/o Mamraj Rathod
……
Mr. A.M. Phule, AGP for Appellant-State
Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate for Respondents No.1A to 1D
……
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 16 SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. By this Appeal, the appellant-acquiring body takes exception to the
Judgment and Award dated 21.03.2002 passed by the learned Additional
District Judge, Jalgaon, in Land Acquisition Reference No.643 of 2001,
whereby the learned Reference Court has enhanced the compensation
payable to the claimant and enhanced the market value to Rs.4,00,000/- per
hectare for acquired Bagayat land.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Reference
Court was not justified in enhancing the compensation. Learned counsel for
the claimant, however, supports the impugned Judgment and Award.
4-FA-1833-2010.odt
2
4. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned
Judgment and Award as well as the material placed on record.
5. The issue involved in the present Appeal is no longer res integra. A
Division Bench of this Court, in Special Land Acquisition Officer (III),
Jalgaon and another Vs. Bhagwat Vitthal Sonwane, reported in 2009 (4)
Mh.L.J. 308, has already considered the market value of the lands acquired
for the same project and determined the appropriate rates of compensation.
The said decision, therefore, squarely covers the controversy involved in the
present Appeal.
6. In view of the aforesaid binding decision of the Division Bench, no
useful purpose would be served by examining the quantum of compensation
independently in the present Appeal. In the circumstances, I am not
inclined to entertain the present Appeal. The Appeal is, therefore, liable to
be dismissed.
7. The First Appeal is dismissed.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
S P Rane
Checking your session…