THE STATE OF MAH AND ORSversusDATTATRAYA NAGORAO SHELKE

2026:BHC-AUG:40633
                                                                       32-FA-2150-2013.odt
                                               1

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             32 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2150 OF 2013

                             The State Of Maharashtra And Others
                                           VERSUS
                                  Dattatraya Nagorao Shelke

                                            ……

          Mr. S.N. Morampalle, AGP for Appellant-State
                                            ……

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


          1.     Heard learned AGP for the appellant-State. None appears for the

          respondent-claimant.


          2.     By this appeal, the appellant-State takes exception to the Judgment

          and Award dated 30.09.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior

          Division, Ahmedpur, in Land Acquisition Reference No.384 of 2005. By the

          said Judgment and Award, the learned Reference Court partly allowed the

          reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and enhanced

          the compensation by determining the market value of the acquired land at

          Rs.1,30,000/- per Acre, i.e. Rs.3,250/- per R, along with the statutory

          benefits. The learned Reference Court also granted 7% enhancement

          towards the acquired trees.
                                                                  32-FA-2150-2013.odt
                                        2

3.        The respondent-claimant's land admeasuring 43 R from Survey

No.711, situated at village Khandli, Taluka Ahmedpur, District Latur, was

proposed to be acquired for the purpose of construction of Khandali Storage

Tank. The possession of the land was taken on 31.12.1998, whereas the

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

subsequently on 04.02.1999. The Special Land Acquisition Officer thereafter

passed the Award under Section 11 of the Act and determined the

compensation at the rate of Rs.696.76 per R. Compensation was also

determined towards the acquired trees. Being dissatisfied with the

compensation so determined, the claimant accepted the amount under

protest and sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act for determination

of the market value.

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

instances at Exhibits 17 and 18. The sale instance at Exhibit 17, dated

17.01.1997, was in respect of 6 R of land sold for Rs.30,000/-. The sale

instance at Exhibit 18, of the year 1998, was in respect of 20 R of land sold

for Rs.50,000/-. Both the sale instances were prior to the publication of the

Section 4 notification dated 04.02.1999. Upon consideration of the said sale

instances, the learned Reference Court determined the market value of the

acquired land at Rs.1,30,000/- per Acre, equivalent to Rs.3,250/- per R. The

learned Reference Court further granted 7% enhancement towards the

acquired trees. Aggrieved thereby, the State has preferred the present

appeal.
                                                                32-FA-2150-2013.odt
                                      3

5.     Learned AGP for the appellant-State submits that the learned

Reference Court was not justified in enhancing the compensation. He

submits that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had already considered the

relevant sale instances while determining the compensation. According to

him, the sale instances at Exhibits 17 and 18 did not justify the

enhancement granted by the learned Reference Court. He further submits

that the learned Reference Court has also relied upon the report of a private

valuer, which could not form a proper basis for determination of the market

value. He, therefore, submits that the impugned Judgment and Award

deserves to be set aside.


6.     I have considered the submissions of the learned AGP and perused

the Record and Proceedings and the impugned Judgment and Award.


7.     It appears that claimant relied upon the sale instances at Exhibits 17

and 18. The sale instance at Exhibit 17, dated 17.01.1997, relates to 6 R of

land sold for Rs.30,000/-, reflecting a rate of Rs.5,000/- per R. The sale

instance at Exhibit 18, of the year 1998, relates to 20 R of land sold for

Rs.50,000/-, reflecting a rate of Rs.2,500/- per R. The learned Reference

Court, upon considering these sale instances, determined the market value

at Rs.3,250/- per R, i.e. Rs.1,30,000/- per Acre.


8.     Both the sale instances relied upon by the claimant are prior to the

publication of the Section 4 notification dated 04.02.1999. The rates
                                                                  32-FA-2150-2013.odt
                                       4

reflected in the said instances are Rs.5,000/- per R and Rs.2,500/- per R

respectively. The rate of Rs.3,250/- per R determined by the learned

Reference Court is between the rates reflected in the said two sale instances.


9.     The learned AGP has not pointed out any specific material on record

to demonstrate that the sale instances at Exhibits 17 and 18 were wholly

irrelevant or that the rate determined by the learned Reference Court was

unsupported by the evidence. The mere fact that the Special Land

Acquisition Officer had determined a lower amount cannot, by itself, justify

interference with the determination made by the learned Reference Court

when the latter has considered the evidence available on record.


10.    As regards the compensation towards trees, the learned Reference

Court, after considering the number of trees and the valuation determined

by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, granted 7% enhancement. The

learned AGP has not pointed out any specific error in such determination or

any material to demonstrate that the said enhancement is excessive.


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

sale instances produced by the claimant and has determined the market

value at Rs.3,250/- per R. The said determination cannot be said to be

arbitrary or excessive so as to warrant interference by this Court.


12.    In view of the above discussion, I find no error in the approach

adopted by the learned Reference Court warranting interference by this
                                                                32-FA-2150-2013.odt
                                            5

Court. The impugned Judgment and Award, therefore, calls for no

interference. The appeal is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed.


13.        The First Appeal is dismissed.



                                                [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                          JUDGE
S P Rane