Bombay High Court
THE MAHARASHTRA KRUSHNA VALLEY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION THR EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND ORSversusNAGESH BALWANT KULKARNI
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The 40% deduction was proper and left undisturbed, but interest must be awarded from the date of the award, not from the date of possession, leading to a partial modification of the awards.
Summary
The Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Corporation (the acquiring body) appealed the awards of a Reference Court that had determined compensation for land acquired for the Sangli Malumbra minor irrigation tank. The land was taken into possession before the statutory notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, and the Reference Court had applied a 40% deduction to the market value based on a sale from a village 8 km away, arriving at rates of Rs 3,333, Rs 5,000 and Rs 6,666 per R for dry, seasonally‑irrigated and irrigated land respectively. The appellant contended that the deduction was inappropriate and that interest under Sections 28 and 34 should be payable from the date of possession, contrary to precedent. The respondents argued that the deduction was proper and that interest should follow the earlier judgment of State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari. The Court held that the 40% deduction was justified and should not be disturbed, but modified the awards to grant interest only from the date of the award, as required by the Rangari decision. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed, confirming the compensation awards while adjusting the interest component.
Issues considered
- The appropriateness of a 40% deduction from market value based on a sale instance located 8 km away from the acquired land.
- Whether interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act should be payable from the date of taking possession or from the date of the award.
- Whether the Reference Court's awards should be modified or confirmed.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 28, 34, 4, 6
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- interest
- deduction
- market value
- irrigation tank
- Section 28
- Section 34
- award modification
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:36495
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…