Bombay High Court
NAVNEETDAS GULABDAS SHAH, L.RS. KUSUMBEN AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that the enhanced compensation rate of Rs 23,000 per acre applies to all portions of the land, with CIDCO liable for its acquisition and the State Government liable for the earlier acquisition, and the claimants are entitled to the statutory solatium and additional component.
Summary
The High Court of Bombay heard two first appeals and two cross‑objections arising from the same land‑acquisition proceedings for 4 acres and 8 acres in Garkheda, Aurangabad, originally awarded at Rs 7,500 per acre in 1980. The claimants sought a higher compensation and the acquiring body (CIDCO) challenged the enhancement granted by the reference court, which had fixed the market value at Rs 23,000 per acre. The Court noted that a portion of the land had earlier been acquired by the State Government for the Buildings & Communication Department, for which compensation remained unpaid. Relying on its earlier decision in First Appeal No. 332 of 2005, the Court held that the same enhanced rate applies to both acquisition proceedings and that the State Government, not CIDCO, must pay compensation for the land it had previously acquired. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed, the award was modified to grant Rs 23,000 per acre plus statutory solatium and additional components, and the State was directed to pay the pending amounts.
Issues considered
- Whether the enhanced market value of Rs 23,000 per acre determined in the reference court applies to the portions of land previously acquired by the State Government.
- Whether CIDCO is liable to pay compensation for the land it acquired and the State Government liable for the land acquired earlier for the B & C Department.
- Whether the claimants are entitled to statutory solatium and additional compensation under the 1984 amendment to the Land Acquisition Act.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 11, 18, 6
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 — s. 126
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation enhancement
- solatium
- additional component
- statutory benefits
- cross objection
- CIDCO
- B & C Department
- 1984 amendment
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:42064
908-FA-2674-2013.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
908 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2674 OF 2013
Navneetdas Gulabdas Shah (Since Deceased)
Through L.Rs. Kusumben Navneetdash Shah And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
AND
X-OBJECTION NO. 136 OF 2023 IN FA/2674/2013
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
VERSUS
Navneetdas Gulabdas Shah (Since Deceased)
Through L.Rs. Kusumben Navneetdash Shah And Others
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1287 OF 2014
Purushottamdas S/o. Gulabdas Shah (Died)
Through L.Rs. Hiraben Purushottamdas Shah And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
AND
X-OBJECTION NO. 234 OF 2025 IN FA/1287/2014
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
VERSUS
Purushottamdas S/o. Gulabdas Shah (Died)
Through L.Rs. Hiraben Purushottamdas Shah And Others
……
Mr. Anand P. Bhandari, Advocate for Appellants-Claimants in FA/2674/2013
and for Respondents in X-Obj/136/2023
Mr. J.R. Shah, Advocate for Appellants-Claimants in FA/1287/2014 and for
Respondents in X-Obj/234/2025
Mr. A.M. Phule, AGP for Respondent No.1-State in Both FAs
Mr. Shambhuraje V. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.2 in both FAs
……
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 04 SEPTEMBER, 2026
908-FA-2674-2013.odt
2
PER COURT :
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
2. These First Appeals and Cross Objections arise out of the judgments
and awards passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad
in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 172 of 1997 and 173 of 1997. Since the
appeals and cross objections arise out of the same acquisition, they are
heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and
order. The Cross Objections are filed by the Acquiring Body challenging the
enhancement granted by the learned Reference Court, whereas the First
Appeals are preferred by the claimants seeking further enhancement of
compensation.
3. The lands belonging to the respective claimants, admeasuring 4 Acres
and 8 Acres out of Survey Nos. 11/1 and 11/3-1, situated at Garkheda,
Aurangabad, were acquired for the purpose of development of New
Aurangabad. The notification under Section 126 of the Maharashtra
Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, read with Section 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, was published on 16.10.1975. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer (SLAO) passed the award under Section 11 of the Land
Acquisition Act on 21.03.1980 and awarded compensation at the rate of
Rs.7,500/- per acre for the acquired lands. When the award was declared, 4
Acres of land belonging to the claimant in LAR No. 172 of 1997 (First
Appeal No. 2674 of 2013) were acquired. The claimants received the said
908-FA-2674-2013.odt
3
amount under protest by reserving their right to claim an enhanced amount
of compensation. Dissatisfied with the award, the claimants sought
references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
4. The learned Reference Court enhanced the market value to
Rs.23,000/- per acre. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation
so awarded, the claimants as well as the Acquiring Body have preferred the
present appeals and cross-objections.
5. Mr. Shambhuraje Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No. 2–Acquiring Body tendered across the Bar a copy of the
order dated 17.08.2026 passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 332 of 2005
and connected matters. Under the same notification and award, lands from
different survey numbers were acquired, and this Court determined the
market value of the acquired lands therein at the rate of Rs. 23,000/- per
acre. Therefore, he submitted that the present appeals and cross-objections
are squarely covered by the order dated 17.08.2026 passed by this Court in
First Appeal No. 332 of 2005. He submitted that when the said order was
passed, it was not brought to the notice of this Court that as per the 1984
Amendment, the claimants are entitled to receive 30% solatium and 12%
additional component.
6. There is no dispute about the fact that this Court has already
determined the market value of the acquired lands arising out of the same
908-FA-2674-2013.odt
4
notification and award vide order dated 17.08.2026 in First Appeal No. 332
of 2005 and connected matters, wherein compensation was enhanced. Since
the present First Appeals arise out of the same notification, same award, and
same acquisition scheme, this Court holds that the order passed by this
Court in First Appeal No. 332 of 2005 is squarely applicable to the present
case. The learned Reference Court in the present proceedings has also
determined the market value at exactly the same rate.
7. After going through the record, I find that CIDCO initiated
proceedings to acquire 4 Acres and 8 Acres lands of the respective claimants.
However, after passing the award, it was noticed that out of the 4 Acres of
land, 1 Acre 36 R of claimant Purushottamdas and land to the extent of 24 R
of claimant Navneetdas had already been acquired by the State Government
for the construction of a V.I.P. Guest House by the Buildings and
Communication (B & C) Department. The possession receipt demonstrates
that possession of the said portion was handed over to the B & C
Department on 09.07.1974, and CIDCO acquired only the remaining land to
the extent of 2 Acres 04 Gunthas and 3 Acres 16 Gunthas of the respective
claimants. In fact, it has also come in the evidence of the claimants that
prior to the acquisition by CIDCO, the land was acquired by the State
Government for B & C Department under award dated 02.02.1970.
8. It is an admitted position on record that a portion of the claimants’
land was acquired by the B & C Department; however, the compensation
908-FA-2674-2013.odt
5
payable towards such acquisition is yet to be disbursed and continues to
remain pending in the T-Account of the B & C Department.
9. Once the land forming part of the same Survey Number has been
acquired, albeit under a different acquisition proceeding, the factors
warranting enhancement of compensation ought to have been considered by
the learned Reference Court, so as to grant the same rate of compensation in
both the acquisition proceedings. Consequently, the learned reference Court
ought to have granted enhancement for both the acquisition proceedings.
10. Therefore, as regards the amount of compensation at the rate
determined by this Court, CIDCO is liable to pay for the land acquired by it.
However, simultaneously, it cannot be ignored that the claimants' lands were
acquired by the B & C Department as well, and therefore, the claimants
cannot be deprived of compensation in respect of those portions. Since the
State Government had already acquired those portions of land and no
compensation was paid, the mere fact that CIDCO is not liable to pay for
that portion would not mean that the claimants are not entitled to receive
compensation for the land acquired by the B & C Department. Once it is
brought to the notice of this Court that the land was acquired by the State
Government for the B & C Department, the State Government is liable to
pay the amount.
908-FA-2674-2013.odt
6
11. In the interest of justice, this Court is of the opinion that while CIDCO
is liable to pay compensation for the lands acquired by it at the rate
determined by this Court, the State Government is liable to pay
compensation for the lands acquired for the B & C Department, i.e. 1 Acre
36 R and 24 R of the respective claimants.
12. It was brought to the notice of this Court that, after passing of the
award dated 21.03.1980, it was found that land admeasuring 1 Acre 36 R
belonging to claimant Purushottamdas and land admeasuring 24 R
belonging to claimant Navneetdas had already been acquired under the
award dated 02.02.1970. In view of the said prior acquisition, the award
dated 21.03.1980 was amended, and the amended award dated 19.09.1980
came to be passed, which is placed at Exhibit-32 (corrigendum to the
award). Exhibit-32 reflects that the original claimants had not withdrawn
the amount payable in respect of the lands acquired by the State and that
the said amount has been lying deposited with the Department in the T-
Account maintained by the Assistant Collector since 17.03.1971, without
any claimant coming forward to receive the same. Thus, the record supports
the position that the said portions of land had already been dealt with in the
earlier acquisition proceedings and that the compensation amount
pertaining thereto was separately lying deposited with the concerned
Department.
908-FA-2674-2013.odt
7
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals filed by the claimants
deserve to be partly allowed by modifying the impugned judgment and
award. Hence, the following order is passed:
ORD ER
(i) The First Appeals filed by the claimants are partly allowed.
(ii) The common impugned Judgment and Award dated 01.01.2013
passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad in Land
Acquisition Reference Nos. 172 of 1997 and 173 of 1997 is hereby modified.
(iii) The Claimants in First Appeal No. 2674 of 2013 (LAR No. 173 of
1997) are held entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs.23,000/-
per Acre for their acquired land admeasuring 24 R acquired by the State for
the B & C Department.
(iv) The Claimants in First Appeal No. 1287 of 2013 (LAR No. 172 of
1997) are held entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs.23,000/-
per Acre for their acquired land admeasuring 1 Acre 36 R acquired by the
State for the B & C Department.
(v) The State Government shall be liable to pay the compensation for the
aforesaid remaining lands admeasuring 24 R and 1 Acre 36 R respectively.
(vi) The claimants shall be entitled to all consequential statutory benefits
including interest as per the law laid down by Full Bench decision in State
of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457.
908-FA-2674-2013.odt
8
(vii) The claimants are entitled to receive 30% solatium and 12%
additional component in respect of land acquired by the State Government
for construction of B & C Department as well as the land acquired by CIDCO,
subject to the claimants’ entitlement under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
(viii) The remaining part of the common impugned Judgment and Award
dated 01.01.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Aurangabad in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 172 of 1997 and 173 of
1997 shall remain unaltered.
(ix) The claimants shall pay deficit court fees, if any.
(x) Modified award be drawn accordingly.
(xi) In view of the disposal of the appeals filed by the original claimants,
the Cross Objections filed by the Respondent-State stand disposed of.
(xii) Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
S P Rane
Checking your session…