THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORSversusINTYAJABEE KHAIAKHA PATHAN (DIED) THR LRS CHANDKHA KHAJAKHA PATHAN

2026:BHC-AUG:25955
                                              1
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

                                907 FIRST APPEAL NO.2070 OF 2019

               The State of Maharashtra and Ors                          ..Appellants
                      Versus
               Intyajabee Khajakha Pathan (Died)
               Thr LRs Chandkha Khajakha Pathan                          ..Respondent
                                                                        (Orig. Claimant )
                                                  …..
                           Smt. B. B. Gunjal, AGP for the Appellant – State.
                       Shri. Vivekanand V. Ingale, Advocate for the Respondent
                                                  …..
                                                   WITH
                                      X-OBJECTION NO.82 OF 2025
                                                 IN
                                    FIRST APPEAL NO.2070 OF 2019

               Ineyajabee Khajakha Pathan (died)
               Thr Lrs Chandkhan Khajakhan Pathan                        .....Applicant
                        Versus
               The State of Maharashtra and Ors                          ..Respondents
                                                 …..
                        Shri. Vivekanand V. Ingale, Advocate for the Applicant
                         Smt. B. B. Gunjal, AGP for the Respondent – State.
                                                   …..

                                             CORAM :      NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
                                             Dated    :   JULY 02, 2026

               FINAL ORDER :-

               .     The Appeal is by the State and Cross-objection by the Orig.

               Claimant. Both the proceedings arise out of the Judgment and Award

               dated 20.04.2015 delivered by the learned Jt. Civil Judge Senior

               Division, Osmanabad, in Land Acquisition Reference No.851/2010

               determining the compensation @ Rs.1,34,300/- per Acre i.e. Rs.3,358/-

               per Are for the acquisition of 40 Ares from Gat No.216 situated at village
                                2
Shiradhon, Tal. Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad for the Percolation Tank.


2.     The above referred land of the Claimant came to be acquired for

the above referred purpose. Section - 4 Notification was published on

05.08.2004 and the Award was declared on 14.03.2006. The Special

Land    Acquisition   Officer   (for   short,   ‘SLAO’)   determined   the

compensation @ Rs.78,000/- per Hectare for 30 Ares land and @

Rs.1500/- per Hectare for 10 Ares land. Being not satisfied with the

compensation determined by the SLAO, the Claimant preferred the

above referred Reference Application. The Claimant led the evidence in

support of her claim. No evidence was led by the State. Considering the

evidence on record, the learned Reference Court passed the above

referred Judgment and Award.


A)     It is submitted by the learned AGP that, the learned Reference

Court has enhanced the compensation exorbitantly. The SLAO

determined the proper compensation.         Two (2) sale-instances were

brought on record by the Claimant, out of which one was from different

village. The learned Reference Court ought to have maintained the

Award passed by the SLAO.


B)     It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Claimant that,

the learned Reference Court did not consider the sale-deed from

adjoining village and considered the sale instance of village where the

acquired land was situated. It is further submitted that, the deduction
                               3
made by the learned Reference Court in respect of size of the land was

around 70% and further deducted 10% towards the location of the land.

He submits that, he restricts the Appeal to the said aspect of deduction.

He referred to the decisions in State of Maharashtra Vs. Santaram

Mahadu Pingle & Ors, 2008 (3) Bom.C.R. 715, and Chimanlal

Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and Another

(1988) Vol. 3 SCC 751.



3.    The aforesaid decision in Chimanlal Hargovinddas (supra) has

been considered by the learned Reference Court as is clear from the

Judgment. The papers show that, the Claimant relied on two (2) sale

instances in support of her claim for enhanced compensation. One sale

instance is below Exh.13 dated 17.08.1995 from the village Nipani for

20 Ares land wherein the transaction was entered into for Rs.1,00,000/-

at the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per Acre. The another sale instance

which is brought on record was below Exh.14 dated 22.07.2005 from

village Shiradhon for 7 Ares land, wherein the transaction was for

Rs.87,000/- at the rate of Rs.4,97,150/- per Acre. Undisputedly, the

acquired land is from the village Shiradhon. As per the settled decision

under the law, when the sale instance from the self-same village is

available, the same is to be considered. The other sale instance is from

another village Nipani.   Therefore, the learned Reference Court has

rightly considered the sale instance from the village Shiradhon.
                               4
Undisputedly, the said sale instance below Exh.14 from the village

Shiradhon was post Section 4 Notification. Considering this aspect of the

matter, the learned Reference Court considered the deduction of 10%

per year. Considering the date of Section – 4 Notification and the date

of the said sale-instance, no fault can be found with the 10% deduction

in the market rate as can be seen from the paragraph no.15 of the

Judgment.


4.    Undisputedly, the land which was the subject matter of the sale-

instance (Exh.14) was 7 Ares and was used for digging Well.

Considering the extent of the acquired land which was 40 Ares, the

learned Reference Court deducted 2/3rd amount from the amount of the

sale-instance. In Santaram Mahadu Pingle (supra), the deduction

towards the extent of land was 30%. Considering the extent of the

acquired land and the extent of the land which was the subject matter of

sale-instance, 2/3rd deduction appears to be on much higher side.

Thus, the same is to be considered 30%.


5.    The learned Reference Court further deducted 10% by considering

the topography of the acquired land and the land which was the subject

matter of the sale-instance (Exh.14). The learned Reference Court

observed that, to bring the acquired land at par with the land of the sale

instance, said 10% deduction is proper as the land under the

sale-instance had the frontage of the government road and was adjacent
                                  5
to the original land of its purchaser. Considering the above referred

deduction on the aspect of size of the land and undisputed aspect that

the land under the sale-instance (Exh.14) and the acquired land were

from the same village, the further deduction towards 10% as can be

seen from the paragraph 18 of the Judgment appears to be unjust and

excessive and the same needs to be set aside.


6.     The learned Reference Court awarded the interest from the date

of Notification, which is contrary to the decision of the Full Bench of this

Court in the case of The State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari,

2016 (4) ALL MR 513 and the same needs to be corrected.


7.     In view of the above, the following order is passed.

                                      ORDER

i)     The First Appeal No.2070 of 2019 filed by the State is partly
       allowed.

ii)    The X-Objection No.82 of 2025 is partly allowed.

iii)   There shall be 30% deduction towards the size of the land instead
       of   2/3rd.   The   same       be   calculated   on   the   amount   of
       Rs.4,47,450/- (Rs.Four Lakh Fourty Seven Thousand Four
       Hundred Fifty) per Acre computed by the learned Reference
       Court.

iv)    10% deduction by the learned Reference Court towards
       topography of the land is quashed and set aside.

v)     The compensation for the acquired land be accordingly computed
       with the statutory benefits.
                                  6

vi)     The interest on the amount be computed from the date of Award
        as per the judgment in the State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva
        Rangari (supra).

vii)    The Claimant shall pay deficit court fees, if any.

viii)   Record and Proceedings be sent back to the learned Reference
        Court.



                                                 ( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. )

GGP