RUPA HARI PAWAR AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ANR

2026:BHC-AUG:41129

                                                                            FA 2038/12 & Anr.
                                                      1

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  25 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2038 OF 2012

                                     RUPA HARI PAWAR AND ANR
                                              VERSUS
                                     THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR
                                                 ...
                                               WITH
                                   FIRST APPEAL NO. 2039 OF 2012

                                        BUDHABAI HARI PAWAR
                                               VERSUS
                                     THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR
                                                   …
                                Advocate for Appellant : Mr. S.K. Adkine
                               AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Dande
                                                   …

                                           CORAM        : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                           Dated        : August 31, 2026

            PER COURT :-

            1.    As the present acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year

            1994, heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the

            respective parties.

            2.    By   these    appeals,    the    appellants/original   claimants   assail   the

            judgments and awards dated 2.3.2006 in LAR No. 37/1998 and 36/1998,

            whereby the reference court has enhanced the compensation, but not

            granted as claimed by the appellants.

            3.    The lands of the claimants admeasuring 90 R. from Gat No. 105 and

            1 H. 10 R. from Gat No. 103 situated at village Umberkheda, Taluka Kannad

            were acquired for the purpose of construction of a percolation tank in the

            village. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was

            published on 10.3.1994. The learned Special Land Acquisition Officer

            (SLAO) has passed the award on 30.9.1996 and granted compensation at
                                                         FA 2038/12 & Anr.
                                     2

the rate of Rs. 440/- per R. by treating the acquired lands as Jirayat. The

claimants received the amount under protest and being dissatisfied with the

award of the SLAO, the claimants filed an application before the Collector

for referring the matters under section 18 of the Act for proper

determination of the market value of the acquired lands. Before the

reference court the claimants relied upon two sale instances from the same

village and those were at Exhs. 14 and 22. The learned reference court after

going through the evidence and examining the record, enhanced the

compensation at the rate of Rs. 775/- per R. Being dissatisfied with the

same, the present appeals are filed by the original claimants for further

enhancement.

4.    Mr. S.K. Adkine, learned counsel for appellants/original claimants

submits that the SLAO awarded meager compensation and therefore,

claimant preferred the above LARs. He submits that the learned reference

court has wrongly relied upon the sale instance dated 26.4.1993 and

determined the market value of the acquired land. He submits that when

there was another sale instance dated 17.3.1993, which was from the same

village and which was prior to section 4 notification by which land was sold

for Rs.1147/- per R., the reference court ought to have relied upon the

same as the acquisition proceedings being benefical legislation and by

granted escalation ought to have determined the compensation for acquired

land. The learned reference court has failed to assign cogent and

satisfactory reasons for not considering the sale instance dated 17.3.1993

and therefore, he prays to enhance the compensation as per the sale

instance dated 17.3.1993.

5.    Per contra, Mr. S.S. Dande, learned AGP supports the impugned
                                                             FA 2038/12 & Anr.
                                        3

judgment and award and submits that the learned reference court has

rightly relied upon sale instance dated 26.4.1993 and correctly determined

the market value of the acquired land. He therefore prays to dismiss the

appeal.

6.       Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, with their

assistance I have gone through the record and proceedings, the impugned

judgments and awards of the reference court and the sale deeds Exhs. 14

and 22 and other record. The learned reference court has relied upon sale

instance dated 26.4.1993 by which 81 R. land from Gat No. 57 was sold at

the rate of Rs.705/- per R. As the notification under section 4 of the Act was

published on 10.3.1994, the reference court by granting escalation of 10%

determined the market value of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.775/-

per R.

7.       Infact the reference court out to have considered the sale instance

dated 17.3.1993, which was from the same village and which was prior to

section 4 notification dated 10.3.1994 and which was fetching higher price.

By the sale instance dated 17.3.1993, the land from the same village was

sold at the rate of Rs.1147/- per R. However, the learned reference court

has not relied upon the said sale instance. Considering that the land

acquisition proceedings are beneficial legislation, the reference court ought

to have considered whether the sale instance is genuine one or not and only

on the ground that the sale instance dated 17.3.1993 was executed prior to

one month of the sale instance dated 26.4.1993, which was relied upon by

the reference court, the sale instance dated 17.3.1993 ought not to have

discarded. Therefore, considering that the land acquisition proceedings are

beneficial legislation, I hold that the view taken by the reference court was
                                                                     FA 2038/12 & Anr.
                                          4

not proper and the reference court ought to have relied upon sale instance

dated 17.3.1993 and ought to have granted rate of Rs.1147/- per R. as the

same is comparable sale instance. As the sale instance dated 17.3.1993 was

executed prior to one year of the notification under section 4 of the Act, the

claimants are also entitled to escalation of 10% over Rs.1147/- and

thereafter the rate for acquired lands comes to Rs.1261/- per R. In view of

the discussion made above, I hold that the appeals of the claimants need to

be partly allowed and pass the following order.

                                     ORDER

(I)     The appeals are partly allowed.

(II)    The appellants/claimants are entitled to receive compensation at the

rate of Rs.1261/- per R. for their acquired lands.

(III)   The    appellants/claimant   shall    be   entitled     to   all   consequential

statutory benefits under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on

the enhanced compensation in view of the judgment of Full Bench of this

Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (4)

Mh.L.J. 457.

(IV)    The impugned judgment and award of the reference court is modified

accordingly.

(V)     The rest of the award shall remain unaltered.

(VI)    Claimants    to   pay   deficit   court    fees,   if    any,      on   enhanced

compensatoin.

(VII) Civil Application, if any, stands disposed of.



                                              ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )

ssc/