DIGAMBAR PANDHARINATH MAHAJAN DIED THROU LRS NARENDRA DIGAMBAR MAHAJAN AND ORSversusTHE COLLECTOR JALGAON AND ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:38670
                                                1 of 7                  01-FA.1137.2006



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  1 FIRST APPEAL NO.1137 OF 2006

                                  THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
                                               VERSUS
                           SURESH PANDHARINATH MAHAJAN AND ANR
                                                  ...
               Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for the Appellant.
               Mr. A. B. Kale, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
               Mr. M. M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2A to 2E.
                                                  ...

                                               WITH
                                    FIRST APPEAL NO.329 OF 2012

                     DIGAMBAR PANDHARINATH MAHAJAN DIED THROU LRS
                           NARENDRA DIGAMBAR MAHAJAN AND ORS
                                              VERSUS
                               THE COLLECTOR JALGAON AND ORS
                                                  …
               Mr. M. M. Bhokarikar, Advocate for Appellants.
               Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for Respondent-State.
               Mr. Atmaram J. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.4 is Absent.
                                                  ...

                                         CORAM :         SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                         DATE    :       19th AUGUST, 2026

               P.C.:-

               1.        Since the acquisition proceedings pertain to the year 1986,

               the appeals are heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates

               for the respective parties.

               2.        By the present appeals, the Appellants are aggrieved by the

               common judgment and award dated 18.02.2006 passed by the learned

               Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Jalgaon in LAR No.1190/2005 (Old
                                   2 of 7                 01-FA.1137.2006



No.53/2003).

3.        The First Appeal No.1137 of 2006 is filed by the State and

First Appeal No.329 of 2012 is filed by the Claimants.

4.        As far as First Appeal No.1137 of 2006 is concerned, the

State has challenged the said order, being aggrieved by the judgment

and award passed by the learned Reference Court, which has granted

exorbitant compensation. As regards the First Appeal No.329 of 2012 is

concerned, the same is filed by the Claimants.

5.        Therefore, the First Appeal No.329 of 2012 was filed by the

other person.

6.        Brief facts of the present cases are as under:-

(i)     The land admeasuring 79 R out of Gat No.8, situated at Village

        Hol,    Taluka   Raver,   District   Jalgaon,   was   acquired      for

        construction of the Civil Court building at Raver in S.R.

        No.31/83.

(ii)    The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,

        1894 (for short, “the Act”) was published in the Government

        Gazette on 18.06.1986.

(iii)   The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “SLAO”) passed

        an award on 26.10.1987.

(iv)    The possession was taken by private negotiation on 10.11.1987.
                                   3 of 7           01-FA.1137.2006



      The SLAO granted a rate of Rs.520/- per R, i.e. Rs.52,000/- per

      hectare.

(v)   Being aggrieved by the same, the Claimants filed reference and

      relied upon the sale instance below Exhibit-41 dated 16.05.1986

      and claimed compensation @ Rs.125/- per square meter, i.e.

      Rs.9,87,500/-. The learned Reference Court did not consider the

      sale instance below Exhibit-41 and, on the basis of guesswork,

      granted the rate of Rs.40/- per square meter. Therefore, the

      present appeals are filed.

7.       Mr. A. M. Phule, learned AGP for the State, submits that the

land which is acquired is from Village Hol and, once the learned

Reference Court has discarded the sale instance below Exhibit-41, the

learned Reference Court ought not to have granted enhancement only

on the basis of guesswork. He submits that the land from Gat No.8,

which is acquired was not included in the municipal limits. The

distance between the land in the sale instance below Exhibit-41 and

the acquired land is considerably far. Therefore, once the learned

Reference Court discarded the sale instance below Exhibit-41, the

learned Reference Court was not supposed to grant compensation only

on the basis of guesswork.

8.       Per contra, Mr. A. B. Kale, learned Advocate for Respondent

No.1 in First Appeal No.1137 of 2006, and Mr. M. M. Bhokarikar,
                                  4 of 7                 01-FA.1137.2006



learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.2A to 2E in First Appeal No.1137

of 2006 and for the Appellant in First Appeal No.329 of 2012, submit

that, as regards the sale instance below Exhibit-41, the same is dated

16.05.1986. The vendor has sold the land admeasuring 320 square

meters out of Gat No.85, situated at Village Hol, Taluka Raver, District

Jalgaon, for consideration of Rs.40,000/-, and the rate per square

meter comes to Rs.125/-.

9.        Both the learned Advocates have submitted that the learned

Reference Court ought not to have discarded the sale instance, as the

acquired land and the land in the sale instance below Exhibit-41 are

situated in the same village Hol. Therefore, the learned Reference

Court ought not to have discarded the same.

10.       Both the learned Advocates have submitted that the

possession was taken by private negotiation on 10.11.1987 for the

construction of the Civil Court building and the Civil Court building

was to be constructed at the outskirts of the city. However, Raver city

and Hol (Shivar) are adjacent and in between Raver and Hol (Shivar),

there is only a road. Therefore, the entire area of Village Hol (Shivar) is

already a developed area. Hence, merely because the land is situated in

Hol (Shivar), the learned Reference Court has discarded the same.

Therefore, both the learned Advocates have submitted that they are

entitled to receive the rate as per the sale instance below Exhibit-41.
                                  5 of 7               01-FA.1137.2006



11.       Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties

and with their assistance, I have gone through the copy of the record

and proceedings. There is no dispute about the fact that the land

admeasuring 79 R from Hol, Taluka Raver, District Jalgaon, was

acquired for the construction of the Civil Court building at Raver. The

purpose of the acquisition is to be considered in the context that if the

Court building is to be constructed, the same must be constructed in

the existing city. Only because some area is mentioned not as Raver,

but as Hol (Shivar), it is only a difference of nomenclature. The city of

Raver and the acquired land is bifurcated by a road and the entire area

is already developed one. As the land is acquired for construction of

Civil Court building, it can be presumed that the same was to be

constructed within the vicinity of the city.


12.       Therefore, I am of the opinion that Exhibit-41 can be

considered as a comparable sale instance for determining the market

rate for the acquired land. As per the sale instance below Exhibit-41,

320 square meters out of Gat No.85, situated at Hol (Shivar), was sold

for Rs.40,000/-. Therefore, as per the contention and the evidence

available on record, that was adjacent to Raver city and the area is also

a developed area. Therefore, 33% development charges need to be

deducted by applying the sale instance. Furthermore, the sale instance

is of a small piece of land, whereas the land admeasuring 79 R was
                                 6 of 7                01-FA.1137.2006



acquired. Therefore, further deduction of 20% towards the small piece

of land needs to be applied. Total deduction amounting to 53% must

be applied to market value of Rs.125/- per square meter, which comes

to Rs.58.75/-, rounded off to Rs.59/- per square meter. Hence, I

proceed to pass the following order:-


                                 ORDER

   (i)     First Appeal No.1137 of 2006 filed by the State is

           dismissed.

   (ii)    First Appeal No.329 of 2012 filed by the Claimants is

           partly allowed.

   (iii)   The Claimants are entitled to receive compensation @

           of Rs.59/- per square meter and to that extent,

           impugned award stands modified.

   (iv)    The Claimants are entitled to receive all the statutory

           benefits along with interest as per 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 impugned award stands unaltered.

   (vi)    Modified award be drawn accordingly.
                                         7 of 7                    01-FA.1137.2006



          (vii) Deficit Court fees be paid.

          (viii) The Claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount, if

                 any, deposited by the acquiring body, by adjusting the

                 amount of interest under Section 28 and 34 of the Act

                 from the amount of compensation payable for the

                 acquired land.

          (ix)   The   bank    guarantee,         solvent   security/surety    or

                 undertaking, as the case may be, if any, stands

                 discharged.

          (x)    Pending civil applications, if any, are also disposed of.


                                           (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

Tauseef