LINGUJI MASNAJIversusSTATE OF MAH. and ANR.

2026:BHC-AUG:8044


                                                                     944 FA NO. 312 OF 2003.odt


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                    944 FIRST APPEAL NO. 312 OF 2003
                         Linguji S/o Masnaji
                         Age: 46 years, Occu: Service
                         and Agriculture,
                         R/o Kandhar, Tq. Kandhar
                         Dist. Nanded                                   ...Appellant

                         VERSUS

                    1.   State of Maharashtra
                         Through Collector, Nanded

                    2.     Special Land Acquisition Officer,
                           Kandhar, Minor Irrigation Works
                           in the office of Collectorate, at Nanded ...Respondents
                                                       ...
                    Ms. Reddy Ranjana D., Advocate for Appellant
                    Mr. V. V. Jahagirdar, AGP for Respondents/State
                                                       ….

                                       CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
                                          DATE : 17.01.2026
                    ORAL JUDGMENT :-

                    1.        This Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-

                    claimant against the judgment and award dated 10.07.2002

                    passed by the learned Land Reference Court, Nanded, in L.A.R.

                    No.281 of 1997, by which the claimant’s claim for enhancement of

                    compensation was dismissed.


                    2.        The    agricultural   land   bearing    Block      No.131/1

                    admeasuring 12 Are, Block No.132 admeasuring 44 Are, Block

                                                                                      1 of 6
                                  (( 2 ))       944 FA NO. 312 OF 2003


No.135/B admeasuring 67 Are along with a well situated thereon at

village Banderpura, Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded was acquired by the

State Government for the purpose of construction of the Banderpura

bridge at Kandhar, pursuant to the notification dated 31.07.1986 as

per Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short L. A. Act)

The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 14.09.1989.



3.        Learned advocate for the appellant-claimant pointed out

the pleadings, the evidence on record, the grounds raised in the

appeal, and the reasons and findings in the impugned judgment. He

submitted that the compensation awarded by the Special Land

Acquisition Officer was meager.     However, the learned Reference

Court failed to consider the sale exemplars at Exhibits-32, 37 and 52.

It is pointed out that the land covered under the sale exemplar at

Exhibit-37, dated 09.05.1986, admeasuring 28 Are of Survey

No.219/A of Mauje Kandhar, was irrigated land and was sold for a

consideration of Rs.45,000/- i.e., Rs.1607/- per Are on which betel

leaves were cultivated. She further pointed out the sale exemplar at

Exhibit-32, dated 11.06.1986, admeasuring 52 Are from Survey

No.137/G of Mauje Bijewadi, was sold for a consideration of

Rs.40,000/-.   She further pointed out the sale exemplar at Exhibit-

                                                                2 of 6
                                   (( 3 ))        944 FA NO. 312 OF 2003


53, dated 03.03.1986, admeasuring 18 Are land, was sold for a

consideration of Rs.5,000/- which reflected the lowest price, and even

the said exemplar was not believed by the learned Reference court.

She also pointed out that the Special Land Acquisition Officer

awarded only Rs.6,000/- towards the value of the well, which is

meager amount. She submitted that the sale exemplar at Exhibit-37

is the most reliable and comparable exemplar, as it reflects the highest

value amongst the other sale exemplars. The land covered under the

said exemplar was irrigated, and the claimant’s land, having water

facility of a well, was also irrigated land. She lastly prayed to allow

the appeal.


4.        The learned AGP for the State strongly opposed the appeal

and submitted that the sale exemplars at Exhibits-32, 37 and 53 were

rightly discarded by the learned Reference Court.              He further

submitted that the compensation of Rs.6,000/- awarded by the

S.L.A.O. towards the old well is sufficient and reasonable. He

therefore submitted that no interference is warranted in the

impugned judgment and prayed to dismiss the appeal.


5.        On perusal of the Record and Proceedings, particularly the

impugned judgment, and the grounds of objections of appeal, this

                                                                  3 of 6
                                    (( 4 ))       944 FA NO. 312 OF 2003


Court finds that the sale exemplar at Exhibit-37, dated 09.05.1986,

was executed a few months prior to the acquisition proceedings and it

reflects the highest price, whereby agricultural land admeasuring 28

Are was sold for a consideration of Rs. 45,000/-. The said land was

irrigated land as betel leaves were cultivated thereon. The said sale

exemplar can be safely relied upon. However, the learned Reference

Court gave erroneous reasons while disbelieving the said sale

exemplar stating that it related to irrigated land by holding that the

acquired land of the claimant is Jirayat and it is situated at a distance

of about one kilometer away from the land in said sale exemplar and

some nearby lands were converted to non-agricultural use and had

schools and temples in the vicinity of it. The claimant’s land was

similarly situated near the non-agricultural land having water facility

of well which was also acquired. Only relying upon the observations

of the S.L.A.O. in the award, the leaned Reference Court erred in

holding that the claimant’s land was not irrigated. It is well settled

that merely because a farmer does not cultivate commercial crops

such as sugarcane or vegetables etc., it cannot be presumed that the

said land is not irrigated. It depends upon the facts situation of each

farmer, particularly the financial position, availability of market for

selling such commercial crops, guidance and knowledge relating to

                                                                  4 of 6
                                  (( 5 ))       944 FA NO. 312 OF 2003


agricultural produce etc. All these aspects were not considered by the

learned Reference court. No justifiable and acceptable reasons are

given for refusing to award enhanced amount of compensation to the

claimant as per the sale exemplar at Exhibit-37.        Therefore, the

claimant is entitled to enhanced amount of compensation for his

acquired land @ Rs.1607/- per Are as per the sale exemplar at

Exhibit-37.     As far as the well is concerned, the Special Land

Acquisition Officer awarded only Rs.6,000/- which is not justified.

Considering that the acquisition is of the year 1986, the reasonable

market value of the said well would be Rs.20,000/-. Accordingly, the

claimant is entitled to     additional compensation of Rs.14,000/-

towards acquisition of well. Hence, interference is warranted in the

impugned judgment. The impugned judgment and award deserves to

be set aside.      The appeal deserves to be allowed.       Hence, the

following order:

                              ::ORDER::

I.        The First Appeal is allowed.

II.       The impugned judgment and award is set aside.

(a)       The claimant is entitled to compensation @ Rs.1,607/- per

Are for his acquired land including the earlier compensation awarded

by the Special Land Acquisition Officer along with all statutory

                                                                5 of 6
                                     (( 6 ))        944 FA NO. 312 OF 2003


benefits like interest, component and solatium etc., as per the

Provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

(b)        The claimant is entitled to additional compensation of

Rs.14,000/- for acquisition of well along with all statutory benefits

like interest, component and solatium etc., as per the Provisions of

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

III.       It is clarified that the appellant / claimant is not entitled to

the interest for the period of delay, if any is condoned by this Court.

IV.        The respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced amount

of compensation along with all statutory benefits like interest,

component and solatium etc., within 12 weeks.

V.         If court fee is not sufficiently paid, the appellant shall pay

deficit court fee. On receiving the same, the enhanced amount of

compensation be paid to the claimant.

VI.        Award be drawn up accordingly.

VII.       Pending civil applications, if any, stand disposed of.

VIII.      Record and Proceedings be sent back.



                                  [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]
HRJadhav




                                                                    6 of 6