Bombay High Court
SIRAJ MAHEBOOB PATELversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ORS
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The Court held that the claimants are entitled to compensation at Rs 800 per R (Rs 32,000 per acre) as the appropriate market value for the dry land.
Summary
The appellants challenged the award of compensation for 1.62 hectares of land acquired in 1993 for a percolation tank in Jawali village, arguing that the market rate should be Rs 2,500 per acre (Rs 2,500 per R) rather than the Rs 500 per R fixed by the Reference Court. The Court examined the sale comparables relied upon by the Reference Court and noted that the only relevant sale (Exhibit‑35) involved irrigated land, whereas the acquired land was dry. It also considered an earlier acquisition in the same village (LAR No. 573/1994) where dry‑land compensation was fixed at Rs 32,000 per acre (Rs 800 per R). Relying on this precedent, the Court held that the appropriate market rate for the dry land is Rs 800 per R. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed, the compensation was increased to Rs 800 per R, interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was awarded, and the remaining awards were left unchanged.
Issues considered
- Whether the market value of the dry land acquired for a percolation tank should be determined at Rs 500 per R as fixed by the Reference Court or at a higher rate.
- Whether sale comparables involving irrigated land are applicable to the valuation of dry land.
- Whether the earlier award of Rs 32,000 per acre for dry land in the same village should guide the present compensation.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 28, 34, 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- market value
- dry land
- percolation tank
- interest
- Land Acquisition Act 1894
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:38829
1 of 6 02-FA.285.2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
2 FIRST APPEAL NO. 285 OF 2007
PASHU MAHEBOOB PATEL
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 286 OF 2007
SIRAJ MAHEBOOB PATEL
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
…
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 283 OF 2007
KARIM CHAND PATEL
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
…
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 284 OF 2007
HAMID CHANDU @ CHAND PATEL
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
…
Mr. A. N. Irpatgire, Advocate for Appellant in all the matters.
Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for Respondent-State in all the matters.
Mr. U. B. Bondar, Advocate for Respondent No.2-Zilla Parishad in all
the matters.
…
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 19th AUGUST, 2026
P.C.:-
1. Despite service, Zilla Parishad, Latur has not engaged any
Advocate to represent it in the present matter. This matter is pending
2 of 6 02-FA.285.2007
for final hearing since 2007, therefore, this Court called Mr. U. B.
Bondar, learned Advocate, who is on the panel of Respondent No.2-
Zilla Parishad to workout the matter. Learned Advocate graciously
accepted the same and worked out the matters for the Zilla Parishad,
Latur.
2. Since the acquisition proceedings pertain to the year 1993,
the appeals are heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates
for the respective parties.
3. By the present appeals, the Appellants/Claimants are
aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 06.10.2006 passed by the
learned IIIrd Adhoc Additional District Judge, Latur in LAR
Nos.1223/1999, 1224/1999, 1226/1999 and 1227/1999.
4. Brief facts of the present cases are as under:-
(i) The land admeasuring 1 Hectare 62 R from Survey No.224 was
acquired for the purpose of Percolation Tank at Village Jawali,
Taluka Ausa, District Latur.
(ii) The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (for short, “the Act”) was published on 22.11.1993. The
Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “LAO”) passed the award on
17.10.1996 and awarded compensation of Rs.21,000/- per
hectare, i.e. Rs.210/- per R. The Claimants are the owners of the
3 of 6 02-FA.285.2007
land as shown below:-
LAR No. S. No. Area H:R
1223/1999 225 00:82
1224/1999 623 01:65
1225/1999 188 01:62
1226/1999 226 01:65
1227/1999 225 01:21
(v) The Claimants claimed compensation @ of Rs.1,00,000/- per
Acre (Rs.2,500/- per R). The learned Reference Court enhanced
the compensation to the tune of Rs.500/- per R.
5. Mr. A. N. Irpatgire, learned Advocate for the Appellants,
submits that, as regards the sale instances below Exhibits-22 and 24,
those are from Village Apchunda, and Exhibit-35 pertains to the same
village Jawali. He submits that the learned Reference Court, though
relied upon the sale instance below Exhibit-35 and determined the
market rate at Rs.500/-, without recording any reasons, and therefore,
he submits that the learned Reference Court ought to have determined
the market rate at a higher rate. Hence, he prayed for further
enhancement.
6. Per contra, Mr. U. B. Bondar, learned Advocate for
Respondent No.2-Zilla Parishad, submits that the learned Reference
Court relied upon the sale instance below Exhibit-35, which is for
4 of 6 02-FA.285.2007
irrigated land, whereas the lands of the Claimants are dry land and
therefore, the learned Reference Court rightly determined the
compensation at Rs.500/- per R, which is proper. He further submits
that are not entitled to further enhancement.
7. He further submits that even the learned Reference Court
ought not to have granted Rs.500/- per R, as the acquired land is dry
land, whereas, as per the sale instance, the land is irrigated land. Even
the 7/12 extract shows that the Claimants were taking Kharif season
crops and, therefore, he submits that there is no scope for granting
further enhancement in the present matters.
8. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties
and with their assistance, I have gone through the copy of the record
and proceedings and also the award passed by the learned Reference
Court. The LAO has granted the rate of Rs.210/- per R. The learned
Reference Court has granted the rate of Rs.500/- per R for the acquired
land. The Claimants have relied upon the sale instances below Exhibits-
22, 24 and 35. As regards Exhibits-22 and 24 are concerned, those are
of a different village, i.e. Village Apchunda, and the learned Reference
Court has rightly discarded those sale instances. However, as regards
the sale instance below Exhibit-35 is concerned, the learned Reference
Court has relied upon the said sale instance, as the same is for Village
Jawali. The land in sale instance was irrigated land, whereas the
5 of 6 02-FA.285.2007
acquired land is dry land.
9. The Claimants further relied upon the order passed in LAR
No.573/1994 below Exhibit-23, wherein the land was acquired for
Percolation Tank at Village Jawali. The learned Reference Court has
determined the market rate for the acquired land at Rs.32,000/- per
acre for dry land. It was not brought on record before the learned
Reference Court that there was a challenge to the said order or the said
order was set aside by this Court. Therefore, I find that, though the
order passed in the other LAR cannot be considered as a binding
precedent, it can certainly be considered as a guiding principle for
determining the correct market value. Therefore, once the land from
the same village was acquired earlier and compensation @ of
Rs.32,000/- per Acre was granted, I find that the Claimants are entitled
to receive compensation @ of Rs.32,000/- per Acre, i.e. Rs.800/- per R.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
(i) All the present appeals are partly allowed.
(ii) The Claimants are entitled to receive compensation at
the rate of Rs.32,000/- per Acre, i.e. Rs.800/- per R for
the acquired land and to that extent impugned awards
stand modified.
(iii) The Claimants are entitled to receive the statutory
6 of 6 02-FA.285.2007
benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
(iv) The Claimants are entitled to receive interest under
Sections 28 and 34 of the Act from the date of the
award as per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in
State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari,
reported in 2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457.
(v) Rest of the awards passed by the learned Reference
Court shall remain unaltered.
(vi) Awards be drawn accordingly.
(vii) Deficit court fees be paid.
(viii) Pending civil applications, if any, are also disposed of.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Tauseef
Checking your session…