Bombay High Court
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, OSMANABAD THR GMIDC, AURANGABADversusASHOK NILKANTH DHALE AND ANR
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appeals are dismissed as the Reference Court’s reliance on the neighboring‑village sale deed was upheld by precedent and no error was found.
Summary
The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Osmanabad (the acquiring body) appealed against the compensation awarded by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which had enhanced the award based on a sale deed from a neighboring village. The acquiring body argued that the sale deed was not from the same village and therefore could not be relied upon, while the claimants contended that the Reference Court correctly applied precedent and that the award should not be reduced. The bench examined the relevance of the neighboring‑village sale deed and found that prior judgments permitted such reliance in similar factual contexts. It also noted that the acquiring body had not produced any evidence to contradict the Reference Court’s findings. Consequently, the court held that there was no infirmity in the Reference Court’s decision and dismissed the appeals, allowing the claimants to withdraw any deposited amount with interest.
Issues considered
- Whether the Reference Court erred in enhancing compensation by relying on a sale deed from a neighboring village under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
- Whether the appeals filed by the acquiring body have sufficient grounds to set aside the Reference Court’s award.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act — s. 18
Subjects
- Land acquisition
- Compensation enhancement
- Section 18
- Reference Court
- Neighbouring village sale deed
- Appeal dismissal
- Interest on deposit
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:42150
1
903-fa-2880-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2880 OF 2018
The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Osmanabad
Thr Gmidc, Aurangabad
VERSUS
Raosaheb Govind Patil And Anr
...
Mr. V. P. Kadam, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, AGP for Respondent-State
Mr. R. V. Naiknaware, Advocate for Respondent no.1
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2884 OF 2018
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2885 OF 2018
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2883 OF 2018
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2881 OF 2018
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2882 OF 2018
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2886 OF 2018
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2887 OF 2018
…..
CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
DATED : 10TH SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :-
. Feeling aggrieved by the common judgment and award
dated 01.10.2013 passed by learned Civil Judge Senior
Division, Osmanabad passed in following Land Acquisition
References, the Acquiring Body is before this Court vide the
present First Appeals.
2
903-fa-2880-2018
Sr. First Appeal L.A.R. No. Judgment date Court
No. No.
1 2880 of 2018 445 of 2010
2 2881 of 2018 453 of 2010
3 2882 of 2018 457 of 2010 Civil Judge
4 2883 of 2018 455 of 2010 01.10.2013 Senior
Division,
5 2884 of 2018 459 of 2010 Osmanabad
6 2885 of 2018 454 of 2010
7 2886 of 2018 458 of 2010
8 2887 of 2018 446 of 2010
2. Considering the short issue of controversy before me, I
have heard the First Appeals for final disposal at admission
stage. In this group of First Appeals, in some matters the
Special Land Acquisition Officer has granted compensation
holding valuation of the land @ Rs.260/- per R for dry land
and Rs.310/- per R for irrigated land.
3. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the claimants have
approached the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act. The claimants relied upon sale instance which
was executed on 04.05.1995 and was identified as Exhibit-19.
The Reference Court placed reliance on the said sale instance
and enhanced the compensation to Rs.1925/- per R for dry
land and Rs.3850/- per R for irrigated land.
3
903-fa-2880-2018
4. In the appeal, Mr. V. P. Kadam, learned Advocate
appearing for the Acquiring Body would strenuously object the
logic applied by learned Judge of Reference Court while
escalating the compensation. He submits that apparently the
said sale instance was from the neighboring village. He would
submit that no sale instance from the same village from which
the land was acquired was produced by the claimants. He
would submit that in view of this, the Reference Court was not
at all justified in placing reliance on Exhibit-19.
5. On the contrary, Mr. R. V. Naiknaware, learned
Advocate representing the claimants would submit that the
Reference Court has not at all committed any error while
escalating the award. He submits that in fact the Reference
Court has failed to grant even higher compensation for which
the claimants do deserve. Without prejudice to his right to
seek enhancement, he would submit that the ground on which
the appeals are filed is not well founded. He would submit
that the Reference Court has rightly relied on the judgment
and orders passed by this Court in cases reported at 2003 (3)
All MR 342 and 2009 (4) Mh.LJ. 707. Thus, Mr. Naiknavare,
would pray to dismiss the appeals.
4
903-fa-2880-2018
6. I have heard both the learned Advocates extensively.
With their able assistance, I have also perused the record.
True that the sale instance at Exhibit-19 was from adjacent
village. The Reference Court has justified its reliance on
Exhibit-19 by referring the judgments and orders passed by
this Court, wherein considering the peculiar facts of the cases,
the sale instance from the neighboring village was adopted for
escalating the award.
7. Upon query to Mr. V. P. Kadam, learned Advocate for
the Acquiring Body, he fairly submits that the Acquiring Body
has not adduced any evidence before the Reference Court to
show that the claimants did not deserve any escalation or the
escalation could not be granted in terms of Exhibit-19. In view
of this, I find that there is no infirmity in the findings rendered
by the Reference Court while granting escalation in the award.
No case is made out to disturb the findings rendered by the
Reference Court. In view of this, I pass following order:
ORDER
a. First Appeals stand dismissed.
b. Any amount if deposited by the Acquiring
Body is permitted to be withdrawn by the
claimants.
5
903-fa-2880-2018
c. Any security if already given, stands
discharged.
d. Needless to mention, the withdrawal shall
be together with accrued interest.
e. Record and Proceedings be sent back.
f. Suffice to note, the interest part would be
governed by the judgment rendered by the Full
Bench of this Court in the matter of State of
Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari, reported at
2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457. In view of this, if any
excess amount is found deposited by the Acquiring
Body, the same be refunded.
( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )
Rushikesh/2026
Checking your session…