THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAHARASHTRA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION DIV. 1versusHARIBHAU CHANDRABHAN SATHE AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:38530
                                                                          13-FA-2352-2013.odt
                                                 1

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                13 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2352 OF 2013

            The Executive Engineer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation
                        Division 1, Through Area Manager, Ahmednagar
                                            VERSUS
                           Haribhau Chandrabhan Sathe And Others

                                               ......
          Mr. S.S. Dande, Advocate for Appellant-State
          Mr. P.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondents No.1 and 2
          Mr. A.M. Phule, AGP for Respondent No.3-State
                                               ......

                                          CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                          DATE       : 21 AUGUST, 2026
          PER COURT :

          1.      Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.


          2.     This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award dated

          19.04.2012 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division,

          Ahmednagar in Land Acquisition Reference No.13 of 2001, whereby the

          learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation payable to the

          claimants to the rate of Rs.1,20,000/- per Hectare, along with consequential

          statutory benefits.


          3.     The lands belonging to the respondents-claimants, admeasuring 2

          Hectares 38 R, situated at village Gujale, Taluka Rahuri, District

          Ahmednagar, were acquired for the Water Supply Scheme, M.I.D.C.

          Ghodegaon, Taluka Newasa, District Ahmednagar, under the provisions of
                                                                13-FA-2352-2013.odt
                                      2

the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961. The notification under

Section 32(2) of the said Act was published on 19.02.1996. The Special

Land Acquisition Officer thereafter passed the award on 07.11.2000 and

determined the market value at Rs.58,700/- per Hectare. Being dissatisfied,

the claimants accepted the compensation under protest and sought

reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.


4.     Before the Reference Court, the claimants relied upon sale instances

at Exhibits 33 and 34. The Reference Court, however, relied upon the sale

instance at Exhibit 34, which is dated 17.10.1996 and relates to 40 R of land

sold for Rs.40,000/-. On consideration of the said sale instance, the

Reference Court applied an increase of 10% per year and determined the

market value of the acquired land at Rs.1,20,000/- per Hectare. The

acquiring body has challenged the said enhancement.


5.     Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Exhibit 34 is a post-

notification sale transaction and, therefore, could not have been relied upon

for determining the market value as on 19.02.1996. He further submits that

the Reference Court has not properly explained the basis for arriving at

Rs.1,20,000/- per Hectare by applying 10% increase per year. According to

him, the enhancement is excessive and unsupported by sufficient evidence.


6.     Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants supports the

impugned Judgment and Award. He submits that Exhibit 34 relates to land

situated in the same village and is proximate in point of time to the relevant
                                                                 13-FA-2352-2013.odt
                                       3

date. He further submits that the Reference Court, after considering the said

sale instance, applied an increase of 10% per year and determined a

reasonable market value. He, therefore, submits that no interference is

warranted.


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

for the respective parties and, with their able assistance, have gone through

the Record and Proceedings and the impugned Judgment and Award.


8.      The principal question is whether the Reference Court was justified

in determining the market value at Rs.1,20,000/- per Hectare on the basis of

Exhibit 34.


9.      Exhibit 34 is dated 17.10.1996, whereas the notification under

Section 32(2) was published on 19.02.1996. Thus, the said sale transaction

is subsequent to the relevant date. However, a subsequent sale transaction, if

proximate in time and otherwise shown to be genuine and comparable,

cannot be discarded merely on the ground that it is subsequent to the

notification.


10.     In the present case, Exhibit 34 relates to 40 R of land situated in the

same village and is within about eight months of the notification. The

appellant has not brought on record any material to show that the

transaction was not genuine or that the land covered by the sale instance

possessed materially superior advantages over the acquired land.
                                                                    13-FA-2352-2013.odt
                                            4


11.        The rate reflected by Exhibit 34 works out to Rs.1,00,000/- per

Hectare. The Reference Court, considering the said sale instance, applied an

increase of 10% per year and determined the market value at Rs.1,20,000/-

per Hectare. Though the precise mathematical basis for the ultimate figure is

not elaborately set out, the appellant has not produced any better or more

comparable sale instance to demonstrate that the market value determined

by the Reference Court is excessive.


12.        On an overall consideration of the evidence, I find that the rate of

Rs.1,20,000/- per Hectare cannot be said to be so excessive, arbitrary or

unsupported by the material on record as would warrant interference in

appellate jurisdiction. The impugned Judgment and Award does not suffer

from any perversity, illegality or material irregularity. Consequently, the

Appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed.


13.        The First Appeal is dismissed.


14.        Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.




                                                [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                          JUDGE
S P Rane