Bombay High Court
DEVDATTA KRUSHNA PATILversusTHE STATE OF MAH THROUGH COLLECTOR AT OSMANABAD
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The Court held that a 10% escalation for one year is appropriate, fixing compensation at Rs 281 per R for the dry lands.
Summary
The appellants challenged the compensation awarded for land acquired in 1986 for a minor irrigation tank at Pimpla village, arguing that the Reference Court failed to apply a 10% annual escalation for the period between earlier sale instances (1984‑85) and the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court examined the sale evidence, noting that one sale (Exh.73) occurred a year before the notification and was relevant, while another (Exh.74) pertained to a different village and was excluded. Applying a 10% escalation for the one‑year gap, the Court fixed the market value at Rs 281 per R for dry land, modifying the award accordingly. The remaining portions of the Reference Court’s award were left unchanged. The appeals were therefore partly allowed, and the modified award was ordered.
Issues considered
- Whether a 10% per annum escalation should be granted for the period between the sale instances and the Section 4 notification.
- Whether sale instances from a different village can be used to determine market value of the acquired land.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 12(2), 4, 6
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- market value
- escalation
- reference court
- dry land
- minor irrigation tank
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:36486
909-FA-212-2010.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
909 FIRST APPEAL NO. 212 OF 2010
Murlidhar Dattatraya Deshmukh Died Thr Lrs Prema And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Mah Through Collector At Osmanabad
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 214 OF 2010
Eknath Shankar Jadhav Died Thr Lrs Laxmi And Anr
VERSUS
The State Of Mah Through Collector At Osmanabad
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1830 OF 2012
Pandurang Bhagwat Deshmukh And Anr.
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra, Thrus Collector,osmanabad.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 213 OF 2010
Devdatta Krushna Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Mah Through Collector At Osmanabad
...
Mr. A. M. Hajare for the Appellant in FA/212/2010, FA/214/2010,
FA/213/2010.
S. A. Wakure for the Appellant in FA/1830/2012.
Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for State.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 6 AUGUST 2026
P. C.:
1. As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1986, the Appeals are
being heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective
Shubham Page 1 of 4
909-FA-212-2010.doc
parties.
2. In First Appeal No.1830 of 2012, the claimants are assailing the
award dated 24th September 1997, passed by 2 nd Jt. CJSD, Osmanabad in
LAR No.551 of 1991 whereby enhanced compensation came to be granted.
Whereas in remaining First Appeals, the claimants are assailing the award
dated 5th January 2007, passed by CJSD Osmanabad in LAR Nos.556, 557
and 558 of 1991 whereby enhanced compensation came to be granted to the
claimants.
3. As all these Appeals arise out of same acquisition proceeding and
same project, the same are being heard together, though the award in First
Appeal No.1830 of 2012 was passed prior to the award passed in remaining
First Appeals.
4. The land of the claimants were acquired for the purpose of minor
irrigation tank at village Pimpla (Bk.). The notification under Section 4 was
published on 6th August 1986, notification under Section 6 was published on
13th August 1987. The notices under Section 12(2) were issued on 20 th April
1988 and served on 25th April 1988. The LAO awarded compensation
@Rs.4000/- per hectare. The claimants claimed compensation @Rs.25,000/-
per hectare, the learned Reference Court enhanced the same to Rs.20,000/-
per hectare.
5. The learned counsel for the respective claimants submit that the
claimants had relied upon sale instances filed below Exhs.73 and 74 dated
Shubham Page 2 of 4
909-FA-212-2010.doc
6th September 1985 and 11th April 1984 which were more than one year
prior to the date of notification under Section 4. While determining market
value of the acquired lands based upon these sale instances, the learned
Reference Court failed to grant escalation for the intervening period
between dates of sale instances and date of notification. Learned counsel
submit that 10% escalation per year ought to have been granted for the
intervening period. Therefore, they prayed for granting 10% escalation per
year.
6. Per contra, learned AGP for the Respondent-State opposes the prayer
for escalation by contending that the learned Reference Court has rightly
granted compensation and there is no need to enhance the same by granting
escalation of 10%. He submits that the learned Reference Court has already
considered the relevant sale instances while determining the market value of
the acquired land including the issue of escalation. Once the escalation has
not been granted by the learned Reference Court it must be presumed that
the same has been refused. Hence, he prays to dismiss the First Appeals.
7. Having heard rival submissions of the learned counsel and upon
perusal of record it is clear that the learned Reference Court has relied upon
sale instances below Exhs.73 and 74 dated 6th September 1985 and 11th
April 1984 which were prior to the date of notification under Section 4 i.e.
7th August 1986. The land in sale instance below Exh.74 was situated in
different village, therefore the same cannot be considered for determining
Shubham Page 3 of 4
909-FA-212-2010.doc
the market value of the acquired land. 39R land in sale instance below
Exh.73 was sold for Rs.10,000/-, whereby market value would come to
Rs.256/- per R. The said sale instance is one year prior to the date of
notification under Section 4. Therefore, in my opinion, 10% escalation for
one year must be granted, whereby the market value would come to
Rs.281/- per R. Therefore, I am inclined to grant compensation @Rs.281/-
per R for dry lands in all these Appeals.
8. The land in First Appeal No.1830 of 2012 is acquired for the same
project. Thus, similar rate must be granted to the acquired land therein.
Hence, I pass the following order:-
ORDER
i. The First Appeals are partly allowed.
ii. The claimants are entitled to compensation @Rs.281/- per R for
the acquired dry lands and to that extent impugned award stands
modified.
iii. Rest of the award passed by the learned Reference Court stands
confirmed.
iv. Modified award be drawn accordingly.
v. Deficit Court fee be paid.
vi. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]
Shubham Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…