Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

SANJAY SUKHLAL RATHODversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR JALNA AND ORS

Disposal
PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED

Holding

The Court fixed compensation at Rs.4,629 per R, aligning with the rate awarded in earlier similar cases, and limited interest to that provided under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act.

Summary

The appellant's land in Wahegaon Sopara, Jalna district was acquired under a 2008 notification for a percolation tank, with an initial compensation of Rs.1,460 per R fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The appellant challenged this assessment, and a reference court raised the compensation to Rs.3,500 per R. Relying on a prior First Appeal (No.1924 of 2025) where similar land was valued at Rs.4,629 per R, the appellant sought the same rate. The respondent argued that the earlier reference involved land in a more developed town and was not comparable. The High Court examined the map evidence showing proximity of the villages and held that identical rates should apply for land acquired for the same purpose under the same award, thereby fixing compensation at Rs.4,629 per R. The Court allowed the appeal in part, denied interest and statutory benefits for the delay, but granted interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act as per a 2016 Full Bench judgment.

Issues considered

  • Whether the compensation rate for land acquired in Wahegaon Sopara should be the same as that awarded in earlier similar acquisitions.
  • Whether the appellant is entitled to interest and statutory benefits for the period of delay.
  • Whether the land in Wahegaon Sopara is comparable to land in Ashti for valuation purposes.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • land acquisition
  • compensation valuation
  • reference court
  • interest under Land Acquisition Act
  • Section 4
  • Section 11
  • Section 18
  • Section 28
  • Section 34
  • equal treatment

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:34798
                                                  -1-
                                                                         917-FA-2491-2025

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 2491 OF 2025

                               SANJAY SUKHLAL RATHOD
                                       VERSUS
               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, JALNA
                                    AND OTHERS
                                                 ......
              Advocate for Appellant : Mr. S. M. Kakade a/w Mr. D. M. Kakade
              AGP for Respondent - State : Mr. S. P. Joshi
                                                 ...…

                                            CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
                                             DATED : 06th AUGUST, 2026
              JUDGMENT :

              1.           Admit. Heard finally by consent of parties.



              2.           The appellant takes exception to judgment and award dated

              24.06.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna /

              Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference No. 767 of 2012.



              3.           The appellant's land situated at village Wahegaon Sopara,

              Tq. Partur, District Jalna came to be acquired pursuant to notification

              dated 09.06.2008 issued under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act for

              construction of percolation tank. On 14.09.2011, Land Acquisition Officer

              passed an award under Section 11 of Land Acquisition Act, thereby fixing

              compensation @ Rs.1,460/- per R for acquired land. Aggrieved by

              assessment of compensation, appellant made a reference vide L.A.R. No.
                                    -2-
                                                          917-FA-2491-2025

767 of 2012 under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act. The Reference

Court, upon evaluation of evidence, enhanced compensation to

Rs.3,500/- per R for dry land.



4.          Mr. Kakade, learned Advocate appearing for appellant would

submit that this Court has decided First Appeal No.1924 of 2025 vide

order dated 30.07.2026 in case of Prayagbai Bhimrao Rathod v. State of

Maharashtra through the Collector, Jalna and others. The land in relation

to said matter was also acquired under same award for same purpose. He

would therefore urge to follow same course in present matter and pass

award on the basis of rate fixed in that matter.


5.          Learned AGP opposes appeal by inviting attention of this

Court to observations made by Reference Court in paragraph no.16 of

impugned judgment to contend that appellant's claim to grant

compensation at par with the rate granted by Reference Court in L.A.R.

No. 671 of 2011 cannot be accepted as lands in those References were

situated at Ashti, which is a developed town and lands under present

Reference from village Wahegaon Sopara is not comparable.


6.          Having    considered    submissions    advanced   by   learned

Advocates appearing for respective parties, this Court finds that, in First

Appeal No.1924 of 2025 this Court relied upon rate fixed by Reference
                                   -3-
                                                          917-FA-2491-2025

Court in L.A.R. No. 142 of 2013 as well as L.A.R. No. 671 of 2011 and

finding similarity in the lands which were subject matter of aforesaid

References, this Court accepted land value @ 4,629/- per R for acquired

land.



7.          Mr. Kakade, learned Advocate for appellant has placed on

record a copy of village map of Taluka Partur, which shows that village

Wahegaon Sopara (previously known as Wahegaon Satara) is adjacent to

village Ashti. The land which was under Reference in First Appeal No.

1924 of 2025 is from village Wahegaon Sopara, Tq. Partur. A bare look at

map shows that village Wahegaon Satara is adjacent to Ashti. Therefore,

rate fixed for lands at Ashti as well as Pandepokhari can be solely

considered for land at Wahegaon Sopara.



8.          It is trite that, if land is acquired for same purpose under

same award for same project, generally one and same rates should be

awarded to all landholders. In present case, this Court finds no reason to

depart from view taken in First Appeal No.1924 of 2025, wherein this

Court fixed rate of acquired land @ Rs.4,629/- per R.



9.          In light of aforesaid observations, First Appeal deserves to be

partly allowed. Hence, following order:
                                          -4-
                                                               917-FA-2491-2025

                                       ORDER

          (i)     The First Appeal is partly allowed.


          (ii)    The appellant is held entitled for compensation @ Rs.4,629/-
                  per R in tune with rate granted in L.A.R. No. 671 of 2011,
                  for acquired land.


          (iii)   The appellant shall not be entitled to interest and statutory
                  benefits for the delayed period, if any.


          (iv)    The appellant shall be entitled to interest under Sections 28
                  and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as per Full Bench
                  judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash
                  Shiva Rangari reported in 2016 AIR (Bom) 141.


          (v)     Save and except aforesaid modification, impugned judgment
                  and award shall stand unaltered.


          (vi)    The award be drawn accordingly, on payment of deficit court
                  fees, if any.


          (vii) The Record and Proceedings be sent back to the Reference
                  Court.


                                                     (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
                                                             JUDGE

Tandale


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.