EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MAJBUTIKARAN DIVISION, OMERGAversusLAXMAN KRISHNA MORE, L.RS. SIMITABAI AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:21577
                                                                          4-FA-2537-2019.odt


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         903 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2537 OF 2019
                     Executive Engineer, Majbutikaran Division, Omerga
                                          VERSUS
             Laxman Krishna More, through LRs. Simitabai And Others
                                        …..
          Ms. Shelke Sunita Dasharat, Advocate for the Appellant –
          Acquiring Body
          Ms. Sakshi Ajeet Kale h/f Mr. Ajeet B. Kale, Advocate for the
          Respondent Nos.1 to 11
          Ms. Bharati Gunjal, AGP for Respondent Nos.12 and 13
                                        …..
                                             CORAM :        NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
                                             DATE       :   08.05.2026


          PER COURT :

          1.    This is an Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition
          Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the L.A Act’) by the Appellant
          – Acquiring Body against the Judgment and Award dated
          27.07.2012, passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division,
          Omerga (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Reference Court’)
          in Land Acquisition Reference (LAR) No.200/2009. The operative
          order of the said Judgment reads as under :

               “1-     The reference is partly allowed with proportionate costs.

               2-      The claimant is entitled to receive the enhance
               compensation of Rs.1,05,974/- against the house acquired by
               deducting the amount already received by the claimant.

               3-      The claimant is entitled for the solatium @ 30% on the
               enhanced compensation amount as per section 23(2) of the
               Act.


                                                1
                                                                 4-FA-2537-2019.odt


      4-    The claimant is also entitled for the additional benefit
      and interest as per provisions of section 23(1-A) of the Act.

      5-    The respondents shall pay the interest on the enhanced
      compensation amount @ 9% per annum from the date on
      which possession of the land is taken and @ 15% from the
      date of expiry of said period of one year on the amount of such
      excess which has not been paid in the Court before the date of
      such expiry, as per section 28 of the Act.

      6-    The respondents to deposit all the amounts within the
      period of 6 month from the date of this Judgment.

      7-    The award be prepared accordingly after confirming
      necessary court fees.”

2.    Brief facts leading to the present Appeal are as under :

[I]   For the purposes of Turori Medium Project, Ashta, Taluka
Omerga,     District    Osmanabad,         the     house   property   of     the
Respondents – Claimants bearing No.273, ad-measuring 157 sq.
meter, situated at Village Ashta (Jahagir), came to be acquired.
The notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the L.A. Act was
published in the village on 13.03.1993 and 03.06.1994, respectively.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) determined the rate
of the house property at Rs.773.73/- per sq. meter. Being not
satisfied with the compensation awarded for the house property,
the Respondents – Claimants preferred the above-referred
reference application. The Respondents examined themselves and a
private valuer in support of their claim for enhanced compensation.
No evidence was led by the Appellant-Acquiring Body. On
appreciating the evidence available on record, the learned
Reference Court passed the impugned Judgment and Award.

                                       2
                                                         4-FA-2537-2019.odt


3.    Heard the learned Advocate for the Appellant – Acquiring
Body and the learned Advocate for the Respondents. With their
assistance, perused the papers on record.


(a)   It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellant –
Acquiring Body that, the learned Reference Court took into
consideration the report of the private valuer and granted
enhancement in compensation. There was no material on record
except the evidence of the private valuer in support of the
enhanced compensation. She further submitted that, the learned
Reference Court awarded interest from the date of possession,
which is contrary to the settled legal position that, the interest
should be granted from the date of award under Section 11 of the
L.A. Act.

(b)   It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Respondents
that, expert valuer was examined by the Respondents in support of
the reference application. The detailed valuation report was
submitted by the valuer after deducting 22.36% of the amount.
She further submitted that, the enhancement by the learned
Reference Court was merely 2.6 times. The compensation enhanced
is 78% of the valuation drawn by the valuer. She submitted that, no
interference was called for in the enhancement granted by the
learned Reference Court. She fairly submitted that, in view of the
settled legal position, the interest should run from the date of
Award and not from the date of possession.


4.    There is no dispute in respect of the purpose for which the
house property of the Respondents was acquired. There is also no
dispute in respect of the area of the house property acquired for the

                                  3
                                                             4-FA-2537-2019.odt


aforesaid purpose. The Claimants relied on the evidence of the
valuer, who was examined below Exhibit – 38. His evidence shows
that, he possessed a degree in engineer (Civil) and served as the
Civil Engineer in the Military Engineering Services and was the
Consulting Engineer for certain bodies. His evidence shows that,
he visited the acquired house property one year after the
acquisition. His evidence shows that, the rate applied for the
valuation was based on the D.S.R. of the year – 1992 – 93 and he
calculated the compensation of Rs.1,21,800/-. His evidence also
shows that, no permission was taken from the Acquiring Body
before valuation and no notes of valuation were submitted. The
cross-examination shows that, certain aspects, such as the number
of doors, depth of the wall, length and number of G.I sheets etc.
were not mentioned in the report.


5.   The learned Reference Court recorded that, no counter-
evidence was brought on record against the evidence of the valuer.
It is clear from the Judgment that, the valuer himself deducted
22.36%   towards   depreciation       from   the   total   valuation       of
Rs.1,10,000/-. This goes to show that, there was 22.36% deduction
towards depreciation from the total amount of calculation
calculated by the valuer. As no contra evidence was brought on
record by the Acquiring Body so as to discard the valuation report,
which was prepared after the site visit and there is 22.36%
deduction towards depreciation from the final amount, which was
determined by the valuer, in my view, the learned Reference Court
has rightly determining the compensation towards the house
property. The total amount of compensation which is awarded is
not much. The learned Reference Court has passed well-reasoned

                                  4
                                                               4-FA-2537-2019.odt


Judgment.     After   considering       the   evidence   on   record      and
considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light
of the above discussion, no interference is called for in the
enhanced compensation determined by the learned Reference
Court.


6.     The operative order of the impugned Judgment and Award
shows that, the interest is granted from the date of possession of
the house property. The same needs to be interfered with in view of
the full Bench Decision in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash
Shiva Rangari; 2016 SCC Online Bom 2236, which has ruled
that the interest should be granted from the date of award under
Section 11 of the L.A Act. Therefore, the impugned awards needs
modification to that extent only. Hence, the following order :
                              ORDER
[I]    The Appeal is partly allowed.


[II]   The Paragraph No.5 of the operative order of the impugned
       Award stands modified to the extent that, the interest shall
       be payable from the date of the Award under Section 11 of the
       L.A Act and not from the date of taking possession.


[III] The rest of the Award is maintained.


[IV] The Appellant – Acquiring Body shall deposit the amount
       under the modified Award in the office of this Court within a
       period of six months. Upon such deposit, the Claimant would
       be entitled to withdraw the same after following the due
       procedure of law.


                                    5
                                                     4-FA-2537-2019.odt


[V]     Record and Proceedings be sent to the learned Reference
        Court.


                                      [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]




Sameer/May-2026




                                6