Bombay High Court
STATE OF MAHversusGOVIND RAM WALKE and ANR
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The reference court did not grant excessive compensation and the appeal is dismissed.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed a judgment dated 15 December 2004 in which the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar enhanced compensation for land acquired for a percolation tank. The claimants owned 26 R. and 91 R. of land acquired under a Section 4 notification in 1989 and had been awarded Rs.120 per R. by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, which they accepted under protest and sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, alleging inadequacy. The reference court, relying on a prior award in LAR No. 370/1992 that granted Rs.833 per R. for similar land, increased the compensation. The State contended that the reference court’s award was excessive. The High Court held that the earlier LAR decision was not binding precedent but could guide market value, and found no excess in the compensation awarded. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as without merit.
Issues considered
- Whether the reference court’s enhanced compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is excessive.
- Whether the award in LAR No. 370/1992 is binding precedent for determining compensation.
- Whether the State’s appeal against the enhanced compensation should be allowed.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 18, 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- reference under Section 18
- precedent
- appellate court
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:46236
FA 3188/09
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
913 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3188 OF 2009
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
VERSUS
GOVIND RAM WALKE AND ANR
...
AGP for appellant/State : Mr. S.S. Dande
Advocate for Respondents 1A to 1F : Mr. S.R. Nikam h/f. Mr. Y.V. Kakade
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
Dated : September 30, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. As the land acquisition proceeding is initiated in the year 1989, heard
finally with the consent of the learned counsel for respective parties.
2. Present appeal is filed by the State assailing the judgment and award
dated 15.12.2004 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Ahmednagar in LAR No. 366/1992, by which reference court has enhanced
compensation.
3. The land of the claimants admeasuring 26 R. from Gat No. 362/3, 91
R. from Gat No. 362/1 situated at Walke was acquired for percolation tank
at Walki, Taluka and District Ahmedngar. Section 4 notification came to be
published on 27.7.1989. The Special Land Acquisition officer has declared
the award on 24.1.1992 and has granted rate of Rs.120/- per R. The
claimants accepted the amount under protest and sought reference under
section 18 of the Act by contending that the SLAO has granted very meager
and inadequate compensation. Before the reference court the claimants
relied upon the order passed in LAR No. 370/1992 whereby the learned
reference court has granted rate of Rs.833/- per R. for Jirayat land. Hence,
FA 3188/09
2
the present appeal is filed by the acquiring body.
4. After considering the above, though the order passed in LAR No.
370/1992 cannot be binding precedent, but certainly that can be considered
as guiding principle to determine the market value of the acquired land. It
was also not brought to my notice that the order passed in that LAR was
challenged or it was set aside by this Court. Considering all above, this
Court is of the view that the learned reference court has not granted
exorbitant or excessive compensation. No case is made out for interference.
The appeal sans merit and the same is dismissed. Pending civil application,
if any, stands also disposed of.
( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )
ssc/
Checking your session…