Bombay High Court

STATE OF MAHversusHUSEN GULAB PATHAN and ORS

Disposal: DISMISSED

Holding

The reference court’s enhancement of compensation was proper and not excessive, so the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The State of Maharashtra appealed a judgment that enhanced compensation for land acquired in 1987 for a percolation tank. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had initially awarded a low amount, prompting the claimants to seek a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference court increased the compensation to Rs 252 per R (Rs 10,080 per acre) after applying a 50% deduction. The State argued that this enhancement was erroneous and imposed an undue burden on the public exchequer. The High Court examined the evidence and found that the reference court had correctly applied the valuation principles and did not award excessive compensation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit.

Issues considered

Whether the reference court erred in enhancing the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act.
Whether the enhanced compensation amount is excessive or unlawful.
Whether the appeal by the State of Maharashtra should be allowed.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act — s. 18, 4

Subjects

Land acquisition
Compensation
Section 18
Percolation tank
Public exchequer
Appeal

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41137

                                                                               FA 2340/08
                                                   1

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 15 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2340 OF 2008

                                      STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                              VERSUS
                                   HUSEN GULAB PATHAN AND ORS
                                                  ...
                                  AGP for Appellant : Mr. S.S. Dande
                 Advocate for Respondents 1, 3 to 8 : Mr. A.F. Naiknaware h/f. Mr. S.S.
                                             Deshmukh
                                                  ...

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

            PER COURT :-

            1.      As the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1987, heard

            finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties.

            2.      By this appeal, the appellant/acquiring body assails the judgment and

            award dated 27.1.2005 passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Senior

            Division, Ahmednagar in LAR No. 50/1991, whereby the reference court has

            enhanced the compensation in favour of the claimants.

            3.      The land of the claimants admeasuring 79 R. from Gat No. 269

            situated at village Dhoki, Tal. Parner, District Ahmednagar was acquired for

            the purpose of percolation tank. Notification under section 4 of the Land

            Acquisition Act was published on 3.12.1987. The Special Land Acquisition

            Officer (SLAO) has passed the award on 15.3.1990 and granted very

            meager compensation. Being dissatisfied with the award of the SLAO, the

            claimant filed an application before the Collector for referring the matter

            under section 18 of the Act for proper determination of the market value of

            the acquired land. The learned reference court after going through the

            evidence and examining the record, enhanced the compensation at the rate
                                                                  FA 2340/08
                                       2

of Rs.10,080/- i.e. Rs.252/- per R. Being dissatisfied with the same, the

present appeal is filed by the original claimant.

4.     Mr. S.S. Dande, learned AGP submits that the SLAO has rightly

determined the compensation and the reference court committed error

while considering the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the

parties and therefore, unnecessary burden was put on public exchequer and

therefore, the order passed by the reference court needs to be set aside.

5.     Mr. A.F. Naiknawre, learned advocate h/f. Mr. Sandeep Deshmukh,

learned counsel for original claimants supports the impugned judgment and

order passed by the reference court and 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 and the

impugned judgment and award of the reference court. The land is acquired

for percolation tank from village Dhoki, Taluka Parner, District Ahmednagar.

79 R. Jirayat land of the claimants was acquired for abovesaid project.

Section 4 notification was issued on 3.12.1987. The learned reference court

considering the sale instances at Sr. No. 5 determined the compensation at

the rate of Rs. 10,080/- per Acre i.e. Rs. 252/- per R. by applying 50%

deductions. Therefore, considering the above, the reference court has not

committed any error and not granted compensation which can be said to be

excessive or exorbitant. Therefore, I find that no interference is warranted.

The appeal is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. Civil application,

if any, also stands disposed of.



                                           ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )

ssc/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…