NARAYAN DAULATRAO MOREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:32147
                                                1 of 7                     927-FA.1924.2013



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                927 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1924 OF 2013

                                  NARAYAN DAULATRAO MORE
                                              VERSUS
                          THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
                                                  ...
               Mr. Ashwin Sakolkar h/f. Mr. Vijay G. Sakolkar, Advocate for Appellant.
               Mr. A. D. Wange, AGP for Respondent-State.
                                                  ...

                                               AND
                                   FIRST APPEAL NO. 1834 OF 2016

                          THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
                                             VERSUS
                                  NARAYAN DAULATRAO MORE
                                               …
               Mr. A. D. Wange, AGP for Respondents-State.
               Mr. Ashwin Sakolkar h/f. Mr. Vijay G. Sakolkar, Advocate for
               Respondent.
                                               ...

                                         CORAM :         SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                         DATE    :       22nd JULY, 2026

               P.C.:-

               1.        Since the acquisition proceedings pertain to the year 1996,

               the appeals are heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates

               for the respective parties.

               2.        In both the present appeals, the State as well as the Claimant

               are aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 10.01.2013 passed by

               the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Udgir in LAR No.63/2010

               (Old LAR No.442 of 1999), whereby the learned Reference Court has
                                2 of 7                927-FA.1924.2013



enhanced the compensation.

3.       The land of the Claimant was acquired for the extension of

the Gaothan of village Bhopani, Taluka Udgir, District Latur. The

notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be

published in the Government Gazette on 11.06.1996. The declaration

under Section 6 was published on 05.06.1997, and the Land

Acquisition Officer declared the award on 31.01.1998, awarding

compensation at the rate of Rs.451/- per R. Being aggrieved by the

meagre compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the

Claimant sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition

Act (for short, "the Act"). The acquired land is from Gat No.26. The

Claimant claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.30/- per square foot

and, in support thereof, relied upon the sale instances below Exhibits-

13, 14, 15, 22, 24, 31 and 33, as well as the agreements of sale below

Exhibits-18, 19 and 20. It was contended that, considering the

prevailing market rate, the Claimant was entitled to compensation at

the rate of Rs.25/- per square foot. However, the learned Reference

Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.4,306/- per R, i.e.,

approximately Rs.4/- per square foot.

4.       Mr. Ashwin Sakolkar, learned Advocate for the Claimant,

invited my attention to the judgment and award as well as the sale

instances on record. He relied upon the agreement of sale below
                                3 of 7                927-FA.1924.2013



Exhibit-18, contending that an agreement of sale in respect of 1,600

square feet of land was executed on 24.01.1994 and the sale deed was

subsequently executed on 20.01.1995. Under the said transaction,

1,600 square feet of land was sold for a consideration of Rs.40,000/-,

which works out to Rs.25/- per square foot. He further relied upon the

sale deed    below Exhibit-14 dated 28.01.1999         for   the same

consideration. He pointed out that Exhibits-13, 14 and 15 are all dated

20.01.1995, relate to different Gat numbers, but the sale consideration

is identical. He also relied upon the sale instances below Exhibits-24

and 31, both dated 09.11.1984, wherein 420 square meter of land was

sold for a consideration of Rs.3,000/- each, which comes to

approximately Rs.7/- per square foot. He further relied upon the sale

instance below Exhibit-32 dated 03.12.1997, whereby 48.4 square

metres of house was sold for Rs.25,000/- and submitted that the rate

works out to about Rs.51.5 per square feet. He also relied upon

another sale instance dated 19.06.1998, whereby 1,176 square feet of

Gram panchayat house property was sold for Rs.71,000/-, which,

according to him, comes to about Rs.61/- per square foot.

5.       He, therefore, submitted that the above sale instances clearly

establish that the Claimant is entitled to compensation at the rate of

Rs.25/- per square foot. However, according to him, the learned

Reference Court enhanced the compensation merely on guesswork. He
                               4 of 7                927-FA.1924.2013



further submitted that the total acquired area was 1,19,790 square

feet, out of which the learned Reference Court deducted one-fourth of

the area towards development, reducing the area to 89,842 square

feet. According to him, such deduction was erroneous. He further

submitted that, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court

in Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer (AIR

1988 SC 1652), the appeal filed by the Claimant deserves to be

allowed.

6.         He further submitted that the acquiring body did not lead

any evidence to rebut or discard the sale instances produced by the

Claimant. Therefore, according to him, the appeal preferred by the

State deserves to be dismissed, while the appeal filed by the Claimant

deserves to be allowed by enhancing the compensation.

7.         Per contra, Mr. A. D. Wange, learned AGP for the State,

submitted that the awards below Exhibits-16 and 17 were duly

exhibited. He submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer had

considered as many as eleven sale instances referred to in Index No.2.

According to the sale instance dated 31.12.1993 pertaining to

adjoining Gat numbers, land admeasuring 4 Hectares and 50 R was

sold, and the rate worked out to Rs.660/- per R. However, the learned

Reference Court enhanced the compensation almost tenfold and

awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.4/- per square foot, i.e.,
                                   5 of 7              927-FA.1924.2013



Rs.4,306/- per R. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal filed by the

State deserves to be allowed by setting aside the enhancement granted

by the Reference Court and dismissing the appeal filed by the Claimant.

8.        I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned

Advocates for the respective parties. With their assistance, I have gone

through the record and proceedings, including the map below Exhibit-

46. There is no dispute that the land acquired from Gat No.26 was

acquired for the extension of the Gaothan. As regards the sale instances

below Exhibits-24 and 25 relied upon by the Claimant, those

transactions relate to house plots meant for construction of residential

houses. Therefore, the learned Reference Court has rightly discarded

the said sale instances.

9.        Mr. Sakolkar placed heavy reliance upon the post-notification

sale instances below Exhibits-13 to 15 and Exhibits-32 and 33. Insofar

as Exhibit-13 is concerned, he submitted that reliance can also be

placed upon the agreement of sale dated 24.01.1994 below Exhibit-18,

whereby 1,600 square feet of land was agreed to be sold for a

consideration of Rs.40,000/-, which works out to Rs.25/- per square

foot.

10.       He further relied upon Exhibits-32 and 33, which are sale

instances dated 03.12.1997 and 19.06.1998, respectively. According to

him, there cannot          be any straight-jacket   formula prohibiting
                                    6 of 7                  927-FA.1924.2013



consideration of post-notification sale instances. In the present case,

the notification under Section 4 was published in the Government

Gazette on 11.06.1996 and published in the village on 15.04.1996.

Therefore, according to him, though the aforesaid sale instances are

post-notification   transactions,    they    deserve   to   be    taken        into

consideration, which the learned Reference Court has failed to do.

11.       In this regard, it is necessary to note that although the

agreement of sale is of the year 1994, post-notification sale instances

can be taken into consideration only where no comparable pre-

notification sale instances are available. The learned AGP has referred

a chart Index-II of sale instances, the said chart of Index-II itself

discloses the availability of several pre-notification sale instances,

which were duly considered by the Land Acquisition Officer. Upon

perusal of those sale instances, it is evident that the highest market rate

worked out to Rs.660/- per R.

12.       Moreover, upon perusal of the map below Exhibit-46, it is

clear that the sale instances relied upon by the Claimant do not pertain

to lands adjacent to the acquired land. They relate to small plots

situated away from the acquired land. In the present case, the acquired

land admeasures 110 R, i.e., about 1,10,000 square feet. Therefore, the

sale instances relied upon by the Claimant relate to small residential

plots situated at a considerable distance from the acquired land, as
                                            7 of 7                 927-FA.1924.2013



          reflected in Exhibit-46. Hence, I am not inclined to grant enhancement

          to the Claimant as the sale instance relied upon by them are in respect

          of very small residential plots, whereas the acquired land is

          substantially larger in area. No case is made out for enhancement in

          favour of the Claimant.

          13.       I find that the learned Reference Court has considered all the

          relevant aspects of the matter while enhancing the compensation. The

          learned AGP has failed to demonstrate that the enhancement granted

          by the Reference Court is excessive or exorbitant.

          14.       Hence, both the appeals stand dismissed. No order as to

          costs.

          15.       Pending civil applications, if any, are also disposed of.



                                              (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

Tauseef