Bombay High Court

SURYAKANT VITHALRAO CHINCHOLE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTER

Disposal: Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
Bench: SANJAY A DESHMUKH

Holding

The Court held that the sale exemplar is admissible and, after appropriate adjustments, determines the market value, and that compensation must be Rs 6,516 per Are for non‑irrigated and Rs 13,032 per Are for irrigated lands, with a 40% deduction from the tree valuation and interest as specified.

Summary

The appellants sought enhanced compensation for lands acquired for the Borul Storage/Percolation Tank project under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. They argued that the Reference Court had wrongly disbelieved a sale exemplar (Exhibit‑21/36) and the valuer's report on trees, resulting in an inadequate award. The Court held that the sale exemplar is admissible under Section 51‑A of the Land Acquisition Act and, after a 20% size adjustment and 5% per annum escalation, yields a market value of Rs 6,516 per Are for non‑irrigated land. Applying the principle of parity, the Court fixed compensation at Rs 6,516 per Are for non‑irrigated and Rs 13,032 per Are for irrigated lands, allowed a 40% deduction from the tree valuation, and prescribed interest and rental compensation. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and the impugned judgment partially set aside and modified accordingly.

Issues considered

The admissibility and weight of the sale exemplar for determining market value of the acquired land.
The reliability of the valuer's report on mango and other trees and the appropriate deduction.
The correct rate of compensation for irrigated versus non‑irrigated lands under the principle of parity.
The entitlement to interest, rental compensation, and other statutory benefits.
Whether the Reference Court erred in disbelieving the sale exemplar and the valuer's evidence.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023) — s. 59 (now 54), 65 (now 57), 65 (now 65)
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4, 51-A, 67

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation enhancement
sale exemplar
valuation report
principle of parity
interest
tree valuation
irrigated land
non‑irrigated land
Borul Storage Tank

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:22264

1 904 FA.196.2014 ORS.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
904 FIRST APPEAL NO. 196 OF 2014

SURYAKANT VITHALRAO CHINCHOLE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 190 OF 2014

SHIVAJI VENKAT GAMBHIRE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 191 OF 2014

NARSING PANDURANG PAWALE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 192 OF 2014

NANDKUMAR EKNATH KULKARNI AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 193 OF 2014

PANDURANG SHAMRAO LAKHANGAVE AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

...
Mr. V. D. Gunale, a/w Mr. S. J. Sonkawade, Advocates for Appellants.
Mr. S. G. Joshi, AGP for Respondents.
...

CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 18th April, 2026.
2 904 FA.196.2014 ORS.odt

Per Court:

1 These appeals have been preferred by the claimants for

enhancement of the compensation against the common judgment and

award dated 26th April, 2013, passed by the learned Reference Court,

Tahsil Udgir, District Latur, in LAR Nos.1505, 1506, 1507 and 1508 of

2010, as per following chart:-

Sr. Survey
F. A. No. L.A.R. No. Area of land Nature of land
No. No.
126 ( 4H 90R ) Irrigated
1 196 of 2014 1920 of 2010 126 ( 2H 58R ) Non-Irrigated
120 ( 0H 57R) Non-Irrigated
(0H 54R, 0H 70R,
122 Irrigated
0H 71R, 0H 81R)
2 190 of 2014 1505 of 2010
119 (0.45 R) Non-Irrigated
129 (0.64R) Non-Irrigated
127/2/1 ( 2H 46R) Non-Irrigated
3 191 of 2014 1507 of 2010
129 ( 2H 58R) Non-Irrigated
4 192 of 2014 1506 of 2010 131 ( 1H 76R, 1H 75R ) Irrigated
5 193 of 2014 1508 of 2010 129 ( 2H 95R, 3H 02R ) Irrigated

2 The learned Advocate for the appellants pointed out the

pleadings, the evidence, the grounds of objections in the appeals

and the reasons and findings in the impugned judgment. He

submitted that the lands mentioned in above table are acquired for the

purpose of Borul Storage/Percolation Tank as per the notification

issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He
3 904 FA.196.2014 ORS.odt

submitted that, while awarding compensation, the learned

Reference Court has disbelieved the sale exemplar at Exhibit-21

and also did not rely upon the report of the valuer, who had visited

the acquired lands and drawn up the report of factual situation

alongwith details as per Mirmam’s Table’s factors. He further

submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Reference

Court is inadequate and deserves to be enhanced. He submitted

that the evidence of the valuer was not shaken in cross-examination

and that it was not necessary to serve notice on the respondents at

the time of inspection and valuation of the trees in the acquired

lands.

3 The learned Advocate for the appellants pointed out the

judgment dated 25th March, 2026, passed by this Court in Cross-

Objection No.247 of 2025 and other connected matters, by which this

Court determined the compensation @ Rs.6,516/- per Acre for non-

irrigated lands and @ Rs.13,032/- per Acre for irrigated lands. He

prayed to award the compensation as per the principle of parity.

4 The learned AGP for the respondents strongly opposed

the appeals and submitted that the sale exemplar at Exhibit-21 cannot

be relied upon, as it pertains to a small size of 40 R land, sold under

the sale-deed dated 20th February, 2023, @ Rs.7,758/- per R. He
4 904 FA.196.2014 ORS.odt

submitted that the learned Reference Court has rightly disbelieved the

said sale exemplar. He further submitted that the claimants’ lands

consist of a large chunk and, therefore, sale exemplar at Exhibit 21 is

not a comparable and reliable. He further submitted that the valuation

report is unreliable and therefore, the learned Reference Court rightly

disbelieved that evidence and awarded compensation at double the

amount of award of LAO for the trees. It is lastly prayed to dismiss the

appeals.

5 Perused the record and proceedings, particularly, the

pleadings, the evidence and the impugned judgment and award.

6 The sale exemplar at Exhibit-21 dated 20th February, 2003,

is for the highest sale consideration, by which 40 R was sold @

Rs.7,758/- per R. The sale exemplar is admissible under Section 51-A

of the said Act and proof of the contents of the document is dispensed

with as per Section 59 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, now Section

54 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. It would be proper to

reproduce paragraph Nos.14 and 15 of the judgment of this Court

passed in Cross-Objection No.247 of 2025, which are relevant for

deciding this appeal, which read as under:

“14. The said sale exemplar at Exhibit-36 is admissible
under Section 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is
necessary to clarify proof of the contents of the document is
5 904 FA.196.2014 ORS.odt

dispensed with as per Section 59 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 (now corresponding to Section 57 of the Bharatiya
Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023). However, for proving the
signatures on it, as required under Section 67 of the Indian
Evidence Act, now Section 65 of the Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, the claimants have examined Maroti Madhavrao
Shirse (CW-2) and Ram Maroti Surse (CW-3), who are
signing witnesses of Exhibits 35 and 36, respectively. Thus,
the essential requirements of Section 65 are duly complied
with. In civil cases, strict proof is not necessary, and non-
examination of the purchaser of the land cannot be a ground
to disbelieve the sale exemplar at Exhibit-36. The learned
Reference Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence of
the claimants, particularly Exhibit-36, which reflects the
highest price, but erroneously relied upon Exhibit-37, which
reflects the lowest price.

15. The sale exemplar at Exhibit-36 dated 20.02.2003,
shows that 29 Are land situated at village Deoni (K) District
Latur, was sold for a consideration of Rs.2,25,000/-, i.e.,
Rs.7,758/- per Are. The said sale exemplar can be safely
relied upon by deducting 20% towards the small size of the
land in sale exemplar at Exhibit-36. After such deduction, the
rate comes to Rs.6,206/- per Are. The sale exemplar Exhibit-
36 is executed on 20.02.2003, whereas the claimants lands
were acquired by the notification dated 19.08.2004, i.e., after
about one and a half years. Considering the law laid down in
the authorities of General Manager Oil Vs. Rameshbhai
(Supra) and Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority
Vs. Gobinda (Supra), excluding the base year, it would be
proper to award escalation @ 5% p.a. for one half year only.
Accordingly, the market value of acquired land on the day of
notification comes to Rs.6,516/-per Are.”
6 904 FA.196.2014 ORS.odt

7 As far as the compensation awarded for mango and other

trees in the acquired lands of the claimants are concerned, on perusal

of the valuation report and the oral evidence of valuer, this Court found

that the report, along with its charts, lacks necessary details regarding

deduction of expenses towards fertilizers, labour charges,

transportation, etc. Further, it must be borne in mind that such valuers

are remunerative witnesses, and therefore, their reports require careful

scrutiny. Considering all these aspects and the law laid down in

Maltibai Navnath Kulkarni Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Special Leave Petition No.34508 of 2025 dated 09.02.2026, wherein

the Chinda Fakira case was considered and deduction of 20% was

held to be unjustified. But the said principle is not applicable to the

present case, as the costs of production have not been excluded

which can be seen from the valuation report.

8 In view of the above reasons, the valuation report can be

treated as partly relied upon, but not fully. By deducting 40% amount

out of the amount curved out from the said report, it ought to have

accepted by the learned Reference Court. Thus, the reasons and

findings recorded by the learned Reference Court in this regard are

neither legal nor correct and are not sustainable either on facts or in

law.
7 904 FA.196.2014 ORS.odt

9 Considering all these reasons, the claimants are entitled

for the compensation on the principle of parity as their lands are

acquired for one and same project i.e. Borul Storage / Percolation Tank

at Borul Deoni (Kh) Sindhikamat, District Latur, with the same rate as

per said Judgment of this Court @ Rs.6,516/- per Are for their non-

irrigated lands and @ Rs.13,032/- per Are for their irrigated lands, as

per above chart. Therefore, interference is warranted in the impugned

judgment and award. The appeals deserve to be allowed by setting

aside the impugned judgment and award partly. Hence, the following

order:

ORDER

I. The First Appeal are allowed.

II. The impugned judgment and award are patly set aside and
modified as under:-

(a) The claimants are entitled to compensation @
Rs.6,516/- per Are for their non-irrigated lands as
shown in the chart, including the earlier
compensation awarded and received by them,
along with all statutory benefits like interest,
component and solatium etc., as per the Provisions
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

(b) The claimants are entitled to compensation @
8 904 FA.196.2014 ORS.odt

Rs.13,032/- per Are for their irrigated lands as
shown in the chart, including the earlier
compensation awarded and received by them,
along with all statutory benefits like interest,
component and solatium etc., as per the Provisions
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

(c) The claimants are also entitled to rental
compensation @ 9% per annum from the date of
taking possession) to the date of notification, if any.

d) By deducting 40% amount from the report of the
valuer of trees, the remaining amount be paid to the
claimants. A copy of the said report shall be kept
with this judgment for consideration and calculation
of the amount.

(e) Clause (7) of the impugned judgment and award is
modified as under:

“The claimants are entitled to interest @ 9%
p.a. from the date of the award for one year,
and thereafter @15% p.a. till realisation of the
amount.”

III. It is clarified that the appellants/ claimants are not entitled
to the interest and other statutory benefits for the period of
delay, if any, condoned by this Court.

IV. The respondent-Acquiring Authority is directed to deposit
the enhanced amount of compensation along with all
statutory benefits like interest, component and solatium as
9 904 FA.196.2014 ORS.odt

per the provisions of Land Acquisition Act in this Court
within six months.

V. If court fee is not sufficiently paid, the appellants shall pay
deficit court fees. On receiving the same, the enhanced
amount of compensation be paid to the claimants.

VI. Award be drawn up accordingly.

VII. Pending civil applications, if any, are disposed of.

VIII. Record and Proceedings be sent back.

[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]
nga

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…