Bombay High Court
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION SARVEKSHAN AND ANVESHEN DIVISION, OSMANABADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The reference court was justified in taking guidance from the earlier award for market value, but the interest award must be limited to accrual from the date of the award as per the Full Bench decision.
Summary
The Executive Engineer (acquiring body) appealed against awards that enhanced compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for a water reservoir project. The claimants had sought higher compensation, and the reference court relied on a prior award (LAR No.610 of 2008) from a different village but the same project to set a rate of Rs.8,000 per ropani. The appellant argued that this reliance was erroneous and that interest awarded under Section 34 was contrary to the Full Bench decision in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari. The High Court held that while the reference court could consider the earlier award as persuasive guidance for market value, it was not bound by it, and therefore the compensation enhancement was justified. However, the Court modified the interest award, directing that interest accrue only from the date of the award as per the Rangari precedent. The rest of the award was left unchanged and the appeals were partly allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a reference court may rely on a prior award for market value determination when the lands are in different villages but pertain to the same project.
- Whether interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act should be payable from the date of the award in accordance with State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 12(2), 18, 34, 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- market value
- interest
- Section 34
- reference court
- precedent
- Maharashtra
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:31772
1 of 7 Sr. Nos.902 and 26
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
902 FIRST APPEAL NO. 300 OF 2014
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION SARVEKSHAN AND
ANVESHEN DIVISION, OSMANABAD
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Mr. Sunil P. Sonpawale, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Vivekanand B. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
...
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 270 OF 2014
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION SARVEKSHAN AND
ANVESHEN DIVISION, OSMANABAD
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
…
Mr. Sunil P. Sonpawale, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Patil Dattatray D. Sarawade, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 271 OF 2014
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION SARVEKSHAN AND
ANVESHEN DIVISION, OSMANABAD
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
…
Mr. Sunil P. Sonpawale, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Vivekanand B. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
…
AND
NOT ON BOARD, TAKEN ON BOARD
FIRST APPEAL NO.302 OF 2014
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION SARVEKSHAN AND
2 of 7 Sr. Nos.902 and 26
ANVESHEN DIVISION, OSMANABAD
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
…
AND
NOT ON BOARD, TAKEN ON BOARD
FIRST APPEAL NO.299 OF 2014
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION SARVEKSHAN AND
ANVESHEN DIVISION, OSMANABAD
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
…
AND
26 FIRST APPEAL NO. 301 OF 2014
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION SARVEKSHAN AND
ANVESHEN DIVISION, OSMANABAD
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Mr. Sunil P. Sonpawale, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Vivekanand B. Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 22nd JULY, 2026
P.C.:-
1. Since the acquisition proceedings pertain to the year 2004,
the appeals are heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates
for the respective parties.
2. By the present appeals, the Appellant-acquiring body is
aggrieved by the judgments and awards dated 02.01.2013 passed by
the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Osmanabad in LAR
3 of 7 Sr. Nos.902 and 26
Nos.621/2007, 619/2007, 617/2007, 620/2007, 618/2007 and
78/2008, whereby the learned Reference Court enhanced the
compensation in favour of the Claimants.
3. Brief facts of the present cases:-
Sr. No. Particulars Dates/Numbers/Amounts
1 Land Acquisition File No. 2003/Acqui/CR-54
2 Date of notification under Section 4 of the 18.10.2004
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the
Act”)
3 Date of taking over possession 01.04.2004
4 Date of Award 17.01.2006
5 Date of Notification under Section 12(2) 20.11.2006
of the Act.
6 References made to LAO. 27.12.2006
7 Compensation paid @ Rs.650/- per R.
8 Enhancement sought Rs.25,000/- per R.
. The Claimants, being aggrieved by the meagre compensation
awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, filed a reference
under Section 18 of the Act contending that the compensation awarded
for the acquired land was inadequate. The Claimants relied upon the
sale instances below Exhibits-38 and 39. As regards the sale instance
below Exhibit-39, the same was a post-notification transaction and,
therefore, the learned Reference Court did not place reliance upon it.
While determining the market value, the learned Reference Court
relied upon its earlier judgment and award passed in LAR No.610 of
4 of 7 Sr. Nos.902 and 26
2008 pertaining to the same project. Since the notification in the said
reference was issued one year subsequent to the present notification,
the learned Reference Court awarded compensation at the rate of
Rs.8,000/- per R for the acquired land.
4. Mr. Sonpawale, learned Advocate for the Appellant-acquiring
body, submits that the learned Reference Court has erroneously relied
upon LAR No.610 of 2008, which pertains to a different village situated
in a different direction. According to him, the learned Reference Court
ought to have determined the market value on the basis of the sale
instances produced by the Claimants instead of relying upon an award
relating to another village. He submits that in LAR No.610 of 2008,
compensation at the rate of Rs.7,000/- per R was granted and only
because the notification in the present case was prior by one year, the
learned Reference Court enhanced the rate to Rs.8,000/- per R, which
is unsustainable. He further submits that the interest awarded by the
learned Reference Court is contrary to the law laid down by the Full
Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari,
reported in 2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457.
5. Per contra, Mr. Deshmukh, learned Advocate for the original
Claimants, submits that the land required for the Shekhapur Water
Reservoir project was acquired from different villages, namely
Shekhapur and Gavsud. Though separate notifications under Section 4
5 of 7 Sr. Nos.902 and 26
of the Act were issued for the two villages, the acquisition was for one
and the same project. He submits that in LAR No.610 of 2008,
pertaining to village Gavsud, the notification under Section 4 was
issued in the year 2005, whereas in the present case, the notification
under Section 4 was published in the year 2004. Therefore, considering
the earlier notification in the present case, the learned Reference Court
rightly granted compensation at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per R by
enhancing the compensation by Rs.1,000/- over what was awarded in
LAR No.610 of 2008. He, therefore, submits that no interference is
warranted.
6. He further submits that the sale instances reflected in Index-
II were duly considered by the Land Acquisition Officer. Those sale
transactions of the years 2002 and 2003 indicate market rates ranging
from Rs.470/- to Rs.4,375/- per R. According to him, at the highest,
the Claimants would be entitled only to the rates reflected in those sale
deeds and not to the enhanced compensation granted by the learned
Reference Court.
7. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective
parties, I have gone through the record and proceedings as well as the
copies of the sale instances at Exhibits-38 and 39. It is an admitted
position that for the same project, lands from different villages were
acquired under separate notifications. In the present case, the land
6 of 7 Sr. Nos.902 and 26
situated at village Shekhapur came to be acquired pursuant to the
notification under Section 4 dated 18.10.2004, whereas in LAR No.610
of 2008, the notification was issued in the year 2005 in respect of
village Gavsud.
8. Though it is true that an award passed by the Reference
Court cannot be treated as a binding precedent, the same can certainly
be considered as a relevant piece of evidence while determining the
market value in respect of acquisitions made for the very same project.
Once the learned Reference Court had determined the market value for
lands acquired for the same project, merely because the lands were
situated in different villages would not render the earlier award wholly
irrelevant. Therefore, I find that the learned Reference Court was
justified in taking guidance from the award passed in LAR No.610 of
2008 and enhancing the compensation accordingly.
9. However, so far as the award of interest is concerned, the
impugned judgment requires modification. In view of the law laid
down by the Full Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs.
Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra). Hence, I process to pass the following
order:-
ORDER
(i) The present appeals are partly allowed.
7 of 7 Sr. Nos.902 and 26
(ii) The judgments and awards dated 02.01.2013 passed by
the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Osmanabad in
LAR Nos.621/2007, 619/2007, 617/2007, 620/2007,
618/2007 and 78/2008 are modified to the extent that
the Claimants would be entitled to interest under
Section 34 of the Act only from the date of the award as
per the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in
State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra).
(iii) Rest of the award remains unaltered.
(iv) Award be drawn accordingly.
(v) Pending civil applications, if any, are also disposed of.
10. It is made clear that if any appeal filed by the Claimants
seeking further enhancement of compensation is pending, the dismissal
of the present appeals shall not come in their way. The observations
made herein are confined to the present appeals and shall not operate
as an impediment in the said proceedings. The Claimants shall
independently establish their entitlement to any further enhancement
in accordance with law.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Tauseef
Checking your session…