Bombay High Court
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LATUR MEDIUM PROJECT DIVISION, LATURversusBALAJI DATTU SIRSAT AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The reference court’s determination of market value and the enhanced compensation awarded are proper and not excessive.
Summary
The Executive Engineer, Latur Medium Project Division (appellant) challenged the judgment and award of the Adhoc District Judge, who, on reference, enhanced compensation for lands acquired for the Renapur Medium Project to Rs 1,50,000 per acre for semi‑irrigated lands and Rs 1,00,000 per acre for dry lands. The original award by the Special Land Acquisition Officer had been Rs 36,800 per acre for dry lands, which the claimants accepted under protest and later appealed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The reference court relied on earlier L.A.R. decisions (Nos. 942 of 2000 and 195 of 2001) and 7/12 extracts to determine market value. The appellant argued that the enhanced compensation was excessive and based on non‑comparable sales. The High Court examined the evidence, held that the reference court had properly appreciated the material and that the compensation, though four times the original award, was not excessive, and therefore dismissed the appeals.
Issues considered
- Whether the reference court erred in enhancing compensation for the acquired lands beyond what is permissible under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
- Whether the market value determined by the reference court was based on comparable sales and thus proper.
- Whether the appellant‑acquiring body is entitled to set aside the enhanced compensation awarded.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 11, 18, 4
Subjects
- Land acquisition
- Compensation
- Market value
- Reference court
- Appeal
- Excessive compensation
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:43310
901-FA-2021-2013.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
901 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2021 OF 2013
The Executive Engineer, Latur Medium Project Division
VERSUS
Shamabai Bhaguram Bhandare And Another
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2028 OF 2013
The Executive Engineer, Latur Medium Project Division
VERSUS
Vishnudas Nivruti Gude And Another
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2029 OF 2013
The Executive Engineer, Latur Medium Project Division
VERSUS
Madhukar Jetiba Khandade And Anohter
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2025 OF 2013
The Executive Engineer, Latur Medium Project Division
VERSUS
Gowardhan Venkat Bhandare And Another
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2024 OF 2013
The Executive Engineer, Latur Medium Project Division
VERSUS
Pundlik Jaywant Sirsat And Another
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2022 OF 2013
The Executive Engineer, Latur Medium Project Division
VERSUS
Jaganath Kashinath Sirsat And Another
AND
901-FA-2021-2013.odt
2
FIRST APPEAL NO. 937 OF 2015
The Executive Engineer, Latur Medium Project Division
VERSUS
Gangaram Ranba Kasture And Others
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2023 OF 2013
The Executive Engineer, Latur Medium Project Division, Latur
VERSUS
Ramchandra Chansham Sul And Another
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2026 OF 2013
The Executive Engineer, Latur Medium Project Division, Latur
VERSUS
Balaji Dattu Sirsat And Another
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2027 OF 2013
The Executive Engineer, Latur Medium Project Division
VERSUS
Maheboob Rashid Shaha And Another
……
Mr. B.A. Shinde, Advocate for Appellant-Acquiring Body
Mr. P.G. Gunale, Advocate for Respondent No.1-Claimants in FA/2021/2013
Mr. G.K. Sontakke, Advocate for Respondent No.1- Claimants in FAs/2028,
2029, 2024, 2023, 2026, 2027 of 2013 & 937/2015
Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for Respondent No.1-Claimanat in FA/2025/2013
Mr. S.S. Dande, AGP for Respondent No.2-State in all FAs
……
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 16 SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
901-FA-2021-2013.odt
3
2. By the present appeals, the appellant-acquiring body challenges the
common impugned Judgment and Award dated 28.03.2011 passed by the
learned Adhoc District Judge-1, Latur, in L.A.R. Nos.1132 of 2000, 1133 of
2000, 1134 of 2000, 1135 of 2000, 1136 of 2000, 1137 of 2000, 1138 of
2000, 1139 of 2000, 1140 of 2000 and 1141 of 2000, whereby the learned
Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired lands to
Rs.1,50,000/- per acre for semi-irrigated lands and Rs.1,00,000/- per acre
for dry lands.
3. The lands belonging to the claimants were acquired for the Renapur
Medium Project at village Pangaon, Taluka Renapur, District Latur. The
notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,
“the Act”), was published on 07.11.1996. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer passed the award under Section 11 of the Act on 22.03.1999 and
awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.92,000/- per hectare, i.e.
Rs.36,800/- per acre, for dry lands and double the compensation awarded
for dry lands for irrigated lands. The claimants accepted the said
compensation under protest, reserving their right to claim enhanced
compensation. Being dissatisfied with the award, the claimants preferred the
aforesaid L.A.Rs. under Section 18 of the Act.
4. The learned Reference Court, by relying upon the judgment passed
in earlier L.A.R. Nos.942 of 2000 and 195 of 2001, determined the market
value and granted enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per
901-FA-2021-2013.odt
4
acre for semi-irrigated lands and Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for dry lands. Being
dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation so awarded, the appellant-
acquiring body has preferred the present appeals.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-acquiring body submits that the
learned Reference Court has granted excessive compensation by relying
upon sale instances which were not comparable with the acquired lands. It
is submitted that the enhancement granted by the learned Reference Court
is unwarranted and, therefore, the impugned Judgment and Award deserves
to be set aside.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, I have gone
through the impugned Judgment and Award as well as the Record and
Proceedings.
7. It appears that the learned Reference Court has relied upon the
judgment passed in earlier L.A.R. Nos.942 of 2000 and 195 of 2001,
whereby compensation at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per acre for irrigated
lands, Rs.1,50,000/- per acre for semi-irrigated lands and Rs.1,00,000/- per
acre for dry lands was determined for lands acquired under the same
notification and for the same purpose. The learned Reference Court has also
considered the 7/12 extracts and, upon consideration of the evidence on
record, determined the market value at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per acre
for semi-irrigated lands and Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for dry lands.
901-FA-2021-2013.odt
5
8. Considering the aforesaid material on record, I find that the learned
Reference Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and has
rightly determined the market value of the acquired lands. The enhanced
compensation is slightly more than four times the amount awarded by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer. In the facts and circumstances of the case,
the compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court cannot be said to
be excessive or exorbitant.
9. Therefore, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned Judgment
and Award. No case is made out for interference in the present appeals.
Hence, the appeals deserve to be dismissed.
10. The First Appeals are dismissed.
11. Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
S P Rane
Checking your session…