Bombay High Court
THE MAHARASHTRA KRUSHNA VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION THR EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND ORSversusBABU KHANDA GANJE
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The court affirmed the reference court's 40% deduction but modified the awards to grant interest only from the date of the award, not from the date of possession.
Summary
The Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Corporation appealed the awards of a reference court that had determined compensation for land acquired for the Sangli Malumbra minor irrigation tank. The reference court had applied a 40% deduction to the market value based on a sale transaction from a village 8 km away and had granted interest on the compensation from the date possession was taken, which was before the notification under the Land Acquisition Act. The corporation argued that the distant sale was not comparable and that interest should not be payable from the possession date, citing State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari. The claimants contended that the deduction was appropriate and that the reference court’s methodology was correct. The High Court held that the deduction was proper but modified the award to grant interest only from the date of the award, in line with the cited precedent, and confirmed the rest of the compensation awards. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed, interest was adjusted, and the remaining awards were upheld.
Issues considered
- Whether the reference court erred in applying a 40% deduction to the market value based on a sale transaction from a distant village.
- Whether interest on compensation should be payable from the date of taking possession or from the date of the award under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act.
- Whether the awards of the reference court should be modified or confirmed in their entirety.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Land Acquisition Act, 1960 — s. 28, 34, 4, 6
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- interest
- deduction
- reference court
- irrigation project
- Section 28
- Section 34
- Maharashtra
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:36492
920-FA-1858-2017.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
920 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1858 OF 2017
The Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Corporation Thr Executive
Engineer And Ors
VERSUS
Shahaji Vithoba Shirsat With Consent Namdeo Babu Ganje Dead Thr Lrs
Vanita And Ors
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1859 OF 2017
The Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Corporation Thr Executive
Engineer And Ors
VERSUS
Prakash Vithoba Bhuikar
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1860 OF 2017
The Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Corporation Thr Executive
Engineer And Ors
VERSUS
Babu Khanda Ganje
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1861 OF 2017
The Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Corporation Thr Executive
Engineer And Ors
VERSUS
Rangnath Eknath Sirsat
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1863 OF 2017
The Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Corporation Thr Executive
Engineer And Ors
VERSUS
Hanuman Dyanaba Mali
Shubham Page 1 of 6
920-FA-1858-2017.doc
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1864 OF 2017
The Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Corporation Thr Executive
Engineer And Ors
VERSUS
Nagesh Balwant Kulkarni
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1866 OF 2017
The Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Corporation Thr Executive
Engineer And Ors
VERSUS
Arjun Krishna Magar Dead Thr Lrs Jagannath And Ors
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1862 OF 2017
The Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Corporation Thr Executive
Engineer And Ors
VERSUS
Fulabai Chandrakant Aware
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1865 OF 2017
The Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Corporation Thr Executive
Engineer And Ors
VERSUS
Nagnath Rattu Magar
WITH
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 30832 OF 2016
The Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Corporation Thr Executive
Engineer And Ors
VERSUS
Mahmad Turb Shaikh And Ors
...
Mr. A. M. Gaikwad for the Appellant.
Vivekanand B. Deshmukh for the Respondents.
...
Shubham Page 2 of 6
920-FA-1858-2017.doc
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 6 AUGUST 2026
P. C.:
1. Admit.
2. As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1999, the Appeals are
being heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the respective
parties.
3. The First Appeal No.1862 of 2017, 1865 of 2017 and First Appeal
(St.) No.30832 of 2016 are not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on board.
4. The present Appeals are filed by the acquiring body being aggrieved
and dissatisfied by the order passed by the learned Reference Court in LAR
following references, whereby the learned Reference Court enhanced the
compensation in favour of the claimants:-
Sr. No. LAR Nos. Gat No. Area Compensation
awarded by
the LAO
1. 395/2011 802 20 R Rs.33,500/-
2. 393/2011 841 16 R Rs.43,000/-
3. 390/2011 819 50 R Rs.40,000/-
4. 99/2009 637 4R Rs.51,500/-
5. 97/2009 808 48 R Rs.43,000/-
6. 966/2011 804 24 R Rs.43,000/-
7. 98/2009 788 65 R Rs.40,000/-
8. 391/2011 809 12 R Rs.40,000/-
9. 392/2011 760 6R Rs.40,000/-
761 10 R Rs.40,000/-
Shubham Page 3 of 6
920-FA-1858-2017.doc
10. 394/2011 847 18 R Rs.40,000/-
5. The land of the claimants was acquired for the purpose of Sangli
Malumbra minor irrigation tank. The notification under Section 4 was
published on 23rd December 1999, declaration under Section 6 was
published on 11th July 2002, the possession of the acquired land was taken
on 19th March 1996 i.e. prior to the date of notification under Section 4. The
award was passed on 29th March 2003. The Reference Court awarded
compensation @Rs.3333/- per R for dry land, Rs.5000/- per R for seasonally
irrigated land and Rs.6666/- per R for irrigated land. The claimants had
claimed higher compensation.
6. The learned counsel for the Appellant-acquiring body submits that the
learned Reference Court has relied upon sale instance below Exh.14 which
was situated at a distance of 8 kms from the acquired lands and thus the
same was not comparable with the acquired lands, thought the Reference
Court applied deduction of 40%. He further submits that the possession was
taken prior to the date of notification but the learned Reference Court has
granted interest from the date of taking possession which is contrary to the
law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs.
Kailash Shiva Rangari (2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457). Therefore, he prays to allow
the First Appeals and quash the impugned awards.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submits that the
Shubham Page 4 of 6
920-FA-1858-2017.doc
Reference Court has rightly relied upon sale instances below Exh.17 dated
14th October 1999 and applied adequate deduction of 40% while
determining market value of the acquired lands. The said deduction is
adequate considering the location of the land in the sale instances and no
further deduction is warranted. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the First
Appeals.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and upon
perusal of the record it reveals that the learned Reference Court has relied
upon sale instance dated 14th October 1999 produced below Exh.17 whereby
12R land from village Tamalwadi was sold @Rs.8333/- per R. As the said
sale instance was from a different village and land therein was situated at a
distance of 8 kms from the acquired lands, the learned Reference Court has
rightly applied deduction of 40%, thereby, arriving at the rate of Rs. 3333/-
per R for dry land, Rs.5000/- per R for seasonally irrigated land and
Rs.6666/- per R for irrigated land. Therefore, to that extent I am not
inclined to interfere with the impugned awards.
9. Sofar as the interest under Section 28 and 34 is concerned, the
learned Reference Court has granted the same from the date of taking
possession which is contrary to the law laid down in Kailash Shiva Rangari
(supra) and to that extent I am inclined to modify the impugned awards.
Hence, I pass the following order:-
Shubham Page 5 of 6
920-FA-1858-2017.doc
ORDER
i. The First Appeals are partly allowed.
ii. The claimants are entitled to interest under Section 28 and 34
from the date of awards as per Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra) and to
that extent impugned awards stand modified.
iii. Rest of the awards passed by the learned Reference Court stand
confirmed.
iv. The claimants are at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited
by the acquiring body along with interest accrued thereon.
v. The bank guarantee or solvent security/surety as the case may
be stands discharged after adjusting interest as aforesaid.
vi. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]
Shubham Page 6 of 6
Checking your session…