Bombay High Court
THE STATE OF MAH.versusBABRUWAHAN SHRIHARI KHESE
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appeal is dismissed; the judgment and award enhancing compensation are upheld.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against a 1996 judgment that enhanced compensation for land acquired for a percolation tank at Matephal, Latur. The original award by the Land Acquisition Officer in 1991 fixed compensation at Rs.120 per R, but the claimants, invoking Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, obtained a higher rate of Rs.28,000 per acre from the Reference Court, based on a 1982 sale instance with a 10% annual escalation. The State argued that the original award reflected true market value and that the Reference Court’s increase was unjustified. The Court examined the Reference Court’s methodology, noting that the sale instance was appropriately adjusted for inflation and the land’s dry character. Concluding that the Reference Court had correctly determined market value and did not award an exorbitant amount, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the earlier judgment.
Issues considered
- Whether the Reference Court erred in enhancing compensation beyond the award of the Land Acquisition Officer.
- Whether a sale instance from 1982, adjusted by a 10% annual escalation, can be validly used to determine market value for land acquired in 1988.
- Whether the enhanced compensation awarded to the claimants is excessive or unjustified.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 18, 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- reference court
- Section 18
- market value
- percolation tank
- escalation
- dry land
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:38298
1 of 3 05-FA.2627.2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
5 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2627 OF 2008
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
VERSUS
BABRUWAHAN SHRIHARI KHESE & ANR.
...
Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for Appellant-State.
Mr. Nitin Jagadale h/f. Mr. Vasant Digambarrao Salunke, Advocate for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2026
P.C.:-
1. Since the acquisition proceedings pertain to the year 1988,
the appeal is heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates
for the respective parties.
2. By the present appeal, the Appellant-State is aggrieved by the
judgment and award dated 17.01.1996 passed by the learned Joint
Civil Judge Senior Division at Latur in LAR No.112/1992, whereby the
learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation.
3. Brief facts of the present case are as under:-
(i) The land was acquired for construction of a percolation tank at
Matephal, Taluka and District Latur.
(ii) The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, was published on 25.02.1988.
2 of 3 05-FA.2627.2008
(iii) The Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “LAO”) passed an award
on 08.02.1991. The LAO granted compensation at the rate of
Rs.120/- per R.
(iv) Being aggrieved by the same, the Claimants filed a reference
under Section 18 of the Act. Before the learned Reference Court,
the Claimants relied upon the sale instance dated 03.04.1982,
and on the basis thereof, the learned Reference Court determined
the compensation at the rate of Rs.28,000/- per Acre.
4. Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for Appellant-State submits that the
award passed by the SLAO reflects true and correct market value. The
SLAO granted just and proper compensation after considering the
comparable sale instances and the nature of acquired land. He further
submits that the learned Reference Court granted exorbitant
compensation without proper justification. The learned Reference
Court erroneously relied upon sale instance at Exhibit-12. Therefore,
he prays to allow the appeal.
5. Mr. Nitin Jagadale h/f. Mr. Vasant Digambarrao Salunke,
Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 supports the order passed by the
learned Reference Court.
6. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties
and with their assistance, I have gone through the copy of the record
3 of 3 05-FA.2627.2008
and proceedings. The learned Reference Court has relied upon the sale
instance below Exhibit-12, which was dated 03.04.1982. As per the
sale instance, the rate comes to Rs.35,000/- per Acre for bagayat land,
though the sale instance was executed on 03.04.1982 and the
notification was published under Section 4 on 25.02.1988, the learned
Reference Court granted 10% escalation per year. The learned
Reference Court considered the lands of the Claimants were dry lands
and on the basis thereof, the learned Reference Court has determined
the rate. Therefore, I find that the learned Reference Court has rightly
considered the sale instance and determined the market value. I find
that the learned Reference Court has not granted any exorbitant
amount in favour of the Claimants.
7. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the
judgment and award dated 17.01.1996 passed by the learned Joint
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, in LAR No.112/1992.
8. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
9. Pending civil applications, if any, are also disposed of.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Tauseef
Checking your session…