Bombay High Court

STATE OF MAHAversusBABURAO RUPA RATHOD

Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The reference court correctly enhanced the compensation and no perversity was found, so the appeals are dismissed.

Summary

The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment and award dated 28 April 1995 of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, which had enhanced compensation for lands acquired for a Benetura Medium Project. The acquisition was notified under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 21 April 1988, and the Special Land Acquisition Officer had initially fixed compensation at Rs.13,000‑14,000 per hectare. The reference court increased the rate to Rs.33,000 per acre and also awarded compensation for fruit‑bearing trees and wells. The State argued that the figures in the award were incorrect and that the reference court had wrongly enhanced the rates. The High Court examined the record, found that the enhancement was proper and not perverse, and consequently dismissed the appeals, leaving any pending civil applications disposed.

Issues considered

Whether the reference court erred in enhancing the compensation rates for the acquired land beyond the figures fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
Whether the enhancement of compensation for fruit‑bearing trees and wells was legally justified.
Whether any perversity or error of law existed in the reference court's award.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4

Subjects

Land acquisition
Compensation enhancement
Section 4
Reference court
High Court appeal
Benetura Medium Project

Judgment

                                                                  FA 2721/08
                                     1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                    3 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2721 OF 2008

                        STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                VERSUS
                     BANDU KASHINATH GAIKWAD
                                   ...
                AGP for Appellant/State : Mrs. A.S. Mantri
                                   ...
                  4 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2722 OF 2008

                        STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                 VERSUS
                RAGHUNATH SHEKHA BIRAJDAR DIED LRS
                                   ....
                 AGP for Appellant/State : Mr. S.S. Dande
                                    ...
                   6 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2724 OF 2008

                        STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                 VERSUS
                         BABURAO RUPA RATHOD
                                    ...
                AGP for Appellant/State : Mr. R.B. Dhaware
                                    ...
                   CORAM         : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                    Dated         : July 27, 2026

PER COURT :-

1.    As the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1988, heard

finally with the consent of learned AGPs in respective matters.

2.    The present appeals are preferred by the State, challenging the

judgment and award dated 28.4.1995 passed by the learned Civil Judge,

Senior Division, Osmanabad in LAR Nos. 213, 208 and 220 of 1993.

3.    In the present matters, the lands of the claimants were acquired for

Benetura Medium Project. Notification under section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act was published on 21.4.1988. The Special Land Acquisition

Officer (SLAO) has published the award on 24.9.1992 and has granted
                                                                FA 2721/08
                                        2

compensation at the rate of Rs.13,000/- per H. to 14,000/- per H. and the

reference court has enhanced the same by granting rate of 33,000/- per

Acre and also granted compensation for fruit bearing trees and well etc.

Hence, the present appeals are filed.

4.     The learned AGPs in respective matters submit that there were

incorrect figures mentioned in the judgment and award, but while

preparing the award those number of trees were correct and thus, the

reference court has wrongly enhanced the rate for acquired lands as well

as for fruit bearing trees, well etc. They therefore prays to allow the

appeals.

5.     Having heard the learned AGPs and having gone through the record,

I find that the learned reference court has enhanced the amount of

compensation correctly. I do not find any perversity in the order passed by

the reference court. Hence, the first appeals are dismissed. Pending Civil

application, if any, also stands disposed of.



                                            ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )

ssc/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…