VATCHALABAI SHIVAJI MOREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:40821
                                                                           31-FA-2133-2013.odt
                                                 1

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               FIRST APPEAL NO. 2133 OF 2013

                                    Vatchalabai Shivaji More
                                            VERSUS
                              The State Of Maharashtra And Others

                                              ……
          Mr. Manish P. Tripathi, Advocate for Appellant
          Mr. A.D. Wange, AGP for Respondents No.1 and 2
          Mr. S.S. Dande, Advocate for Respondent No.3
                                              ……

                                          CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                          DATE       : 29 AUGUST, 2026
          PER COURT :

          1.     Heard learned counsel Mr. Manish P. Tripathi for the appellant,

          learned AGP Mr. A.D. Wange for respondent Nos.1 and 2-State and learned

          counsel Mr. S.S. Dande for respondent No.3-Acquiring Body.


          2.     This appeal is preferred by the original claimant against the

          Judgment and Award dated 02.02.2013 passed by the learned 2nd Joint

          Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad in Land Acquisition Reference

          No.446 of 2007. By the said Judgment and Award, the learned Reference

          Court partly allowed the Reference and determined the market value of the

          acquired irrigated land at the rate of Rs.1,78,400/- per Acre.


          3.     The land of the appellant admeasuring 2 Hectare 82 R from Survey

          No.110, situated at village Lohagaon, Taluka Tuljapur, District Osmanabad,

          was acquired for the purpose of construction of Lohagaon Storage Tank. The
                                                               31-FA-2133-2013.odt
                                     2

notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published

on 04.05.2000. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the award under

Section 11 of the Act on 17.03.2003 and awarded compensation at the rate

of Rs.46,000/- per Hectare, apart from compensation towards trees. The

appellant, being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, accepted the

amount under protest and sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act.


4.     Before the learned Reference Court, the appellant relied upon sale

instances and valuation reports and claimed enhanced compensation

towards the acquired land, fruit-bearing trees, well, pipeline and other

structures. The learned Reference Court, after considering the material

placed on record, determined the market value of the acquired irrigated

land at the rate of Rs.1,78,400/- per Acre. However, the claim for separate

compensation towards trees and structures was not accepted. Hence, the

present appeal.


5.     Learned counsel Mr. Tripathi for the claimant submits that, insofar as

the compensation for the acquired land is concerned, the claimant is

accepting the rate determined by the learned Reference Court. He submits

that, in some other LARs, i.e., LAR No.447 of 2007 and connected LARs, the

rate of Rs.1,78,000/- per Acre determined by the learned Reference Court

has been confirmed by this Court vide its order dated 23.07.2026 passed in

First Appeal No.1904 of 2017 and connected matters. However, insofar as

the present appeal is concerned, the claimant is assailing the impugned
                                                                31-FA-2133-2013.odt
                                         3

Judgment and Award to the extent that no compensation has been granted

towards the trees, structure and well.


6.       As regards the trees, learned counsel for the appellant submits that

the existence of fruit-bearing trees is supported by the revenue record as

well as the valuation report. He submits that the valuer had inspected the

acquired land and had prepared the valuation report. The valuer was also

examined before the learned Reference Court. According to him, once the

valuation report was proved through the examination of the valuer, the

learned Reference Court ought not to have discarded it merely on the

ground that it was prepared by a private valuer. He submits that the

appellant was, therefore, entitled to compensation for the fruit-bearing

trees.


7.       As regards the well, bore-well, pipeline and structure, learned

counsel submits that the appellant had placed on record the valuation report

of Mr. Ramchandra S. Baraskar. According to him, the said valuer had

inspected the acquired property and had valued the well, pipeline, bund and

bore-well on the basis of the D.S. rates applicable for the year 2000-2001.

He submits that the learned Reference Court has rejected the said claim

without assigning sufficient reasons. He further submits that the fact that

the acquired land was treated as irrigated land would not, by itself,

disentitle the appellant from claiming separate compensation for the well

and other irrigation facilities. In support of this submission, reliance is
                                                               31-FA-2133-2013.odt
                                     4

placed upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ambya Kalya

Mahtra (D) by L.Rs. and Others v. State of Maharashtra, 2011 AIR SCW

5749 and Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009

Supreme Court 2238.


8.     Learned counsel for the Acquiring Body and learned AGP oppose the

appeal. They submit that the valuation reports relied upon by the appellant

are not reliable and, therefore, cannot be accepted. As regards the trees,

they invite attention to the mutation entry and submit that the entry relied

upon by the appellant does not support the large number of trees

subsequently shown in the valuation report. According to them, mutation

entry No.1033 dated 15.01.1997 records only two mango trees, whereas the

valuation report subsequently records 101 mango trees, 5 tamarind trees

and 6 coconut trees. They, therefore, submit that there is a substantial

discrepancy between the contemporaneous revenue record and the

valuation report.


9.     Learned counsel further submits that the valuation report of Mr. N.G.

Patil cannot be safely relied upon. According to him, the report is in a

prescribed format, with the particulars filled in the blank spaces, and the

valuer was not a Government registered valuer. It is further submitted that

the report records that the valuer inspected the land on 27.09.2000 and

submitted the report on 30.09.2000, whereas the other circumstances

appearing on record do not support the existence of the number of trees
                                                                 31-FA-2133-2013.odt
                                      5

claimed by the appellant. The Acquiring Body, therefore, submits that the

learned Reference Court was justified in rejecting the claim based upon the

said report.


10.    As regards the claim towards well, bore-well, pipeline and structure,

learned counsel for the Acquiring Body submits that the learned Reference

Court has already treated the acquired land as irrigated land while

determining its market value. The existence of irrigation facilities was thus

taken into consideration while determining the value of the land. According

to him, the valuation report relied upon by the appellant is not sufficient to

establish the separate value claimed for the alleged structures. He, therefore,

supports the Judgment and Award.


11.    I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel

for the parties and the learned AGP. With their able assistance, I have gone

through the impugned Judgment and Award and the record and

proceedings.


12.    At the outset, it is necessary to note that the appellant is not seeking

any further enhancement in the market value of the acquired land.

Therefore, the controversy in the present appeal is confined to the

appellant's claim for additional compensation towards trees, well, bore-well,

pipeline and structure.


13.    As regards the claim for fruit-bearing trees, the principal material
                                                                31-FA-2133-2013.odt
                                      6

relied upon by the appellant is the valuation report prepared by Mr. N.G.

Patil. The said report records that the valuer inspected the acquired land on

27.09.2000 and mentions 101 mango trees, 5 tamarind trees and 6 coconut

trees.


14.      However, the said valuation report has to be considered in the light

of the other material on record. The respondents have relied upon mutation

entry No.1033 dated 15.01.1997. According to the respondents, the said

entry does not support the existence of 101 mango trees as subsequently

stated in the valuation report. Therefore, there is a material discrepancy

between the revenue entry relied upon by the respondents and the number

of trees mentioned in the valuation report.


15.      There is another circumstance which affects the reliability of the

valuation report. The report itself states that the inspection was carried out

on 27.09.2000. The report does not furnish particulars such as the age of the

trees or other material particulars which would enable the Court to

independently assess the valuation of the alleged fruit-bearing trees. The

mere fact that the valuer was examined would not, by itself, make the

contents of the report conclusive. The Court is required to assess the report

along with the other evidence on record.


16.      In the present case, considering the material discrepancy regarding

the number of trees and the absence of sufficient particulars in the valuation
                                                                31-FA-2133-2013.odt
                                      7

report to establish their age, nature and value, the learned Reference Court

was justified in not placing reliance upon the said report for awarding

additional compensation towards trees. I, therefore, find no reason to take a

different view.


17.    The claim towards well, bore-well, pipeline and structure also rests

principally upon the valuation report of Mr. Ramchandra S. Baraskar. The

said report is stated to have been prepared after inspection of the acquired

property and on the basis of the D.S. rates for the year 2000-2001.


18.    In the present case, the learned Reference Court has considered the

material placed before it and has not accepted the valuation report as

sufficient proof for awarding separate compensation towards the well, bore-

well, pipeline and structure. Apart from the valuation report, no sufficient

material has been demonstrated before this Court which would justify

interference with that finding. The report itself, without satisfactory

supporting evidence regarding the existence and value of the individual

structures, cannot be treated as conclusive.


19.    As regards the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the

appellant are concerned, it is also relevant that while determining the

market value of the acquired land, the learned Reference Court has treated

the land as irrigated. Thus, the irrigated nature of the land was taken into

consideration while determining its market value. In the facts of the present
                                                                     31-FA-2133-2013.odt
                                          8

case, the appellant has not demonstrated any error in the assessment made

by the learned Reference Court so as to warrant grant of further

compensation on the basis of the valuation report.


20.        The authorities relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant,

therefore, do not assist the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the

present case. The entitlement to separate compensation would depend upon

the evidence establishing the existence and value of the particular assets. In

the present case, such evidence has not been found sufficient by the learned

Reference Court, and I see no perversity or error in that conclusion.


21.        In view of the above discussion, I find that the appellant has failed to

demonstrate any error in the findings recorded by the learned Reference

Court in rejecting the claim for separate compensation towards the trees,

well, bore-well, pipeline and structure. The impugned Judgment and Award

does not warrant interference in the present appeal. Hence, the present

appeal deserves to be dismissed.


22.        The First Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.


23.        Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.



                                                [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                          JUDGE
S P Rane