Bombay High Court
VISHNU PRABHU KADAMversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHERS
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANJAY A DESHMUKH
Holding
The appeals are partly allowed and the compensation awards are modified to reflect the higher sale exemplar rates with appropriate adjustments.
Summary
The appellants challenged the compensation awarded for their lands acquired for a percolation tank in Beed district, arguing that the Reference Court failed to apply the highest comparable sale exemplar. The lands included irrigated and non‑irrigated parcels, as well as potkharaba (barren) land. The court examined the sale exemplars, particularly Exh.21 (11 Are at Rs.1,818 per Are) and applied a 35% deduction due to size and contiguous ownership, then added cumulative escalation for the three‑year period before acquisition. It concluded that the appellants were entitled to Rs.3,386 per Are for irrigated land and Rs.1,693 per Are for non‑irrigated land, with Rs.846 per Are for potkharaba land, along with statutory interest and solatium. Accordingly, the appeals were partly allowed and the compensation awards were modified to reflect these enhanced amounts.
Issues considered
- Whether the Reference Court erred by not considering the highest comparable sale exemplar for determining compensation
- Whether the appropriate compensation rates for irrigated, non‑irrigated, and potkharaba land were applied
- Whether adjustments such as size‑based deduction and cumulative escalation are warranted
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- sale exemplar
- percolation tank
- irrigated land
- potkharaba land
- interest
- solatium
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:8054
fa3319.11-
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
908 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3319 OF 2011
Shahadeo Kisan Waghmare
(Died through L.Rs. Kamalbai Shahadeo Waghmare and another)
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and another
…..
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3320 OF 2011
Babu Dagadu Mote
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and another
…..
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3321 OF 2011
Babita Dharmraj Kadam
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and another
…..
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3322 OF 2011
Vishnu Prabhu Kadam
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and another
…..
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Vilas M. Humbe
AGP for Respondent No.1: Mr. S. B. Jadhav
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Ms. Vanita H. Sangole
…..
CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATED : 20th FEBRUARY, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. All these appeals are preferred against the judgments and
awards passed by the learned Reference Court at Beed, as shown in
fa3319.11-
-2-
the following chart:-
Sr. No. L.A.R. No. F.A. No. Date of judgment
1 46 of 2006 3319 of 2011 25.04.2006
2 49 of 2006 3320 of 2011 25.04.2006
3 176 of 2006 3321 of 2011 26.04.2006
4 113 of 2006 3322 of 2011 26.04.2006
2. Learned advocate for the appellants submitted that the
appellants’ lands were acquired for the purpose of construction of
percolation tank at Shindewari, under village Ranjani, Tq. Georai
district Beed, by issuing notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “L.A. Act”) on 05.08.1997. The final
award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer (for short “L.A.O.”)
on 31.01.1999.
3. Learned advocate for the appellants pointed out pleadings,
evidence, grounds of objection of appeals and the reasons and
findings of the learned Reference Court. He further pointed out that
the lands of the appellants in appeal No. 3319 of 2011 is admittedly
irrigated land and having water facility through well, situated in block
No. 436. He further submitted that the learned Reference court has
not considered the basic principle of awarding compensation that the
highest value of sale exemplar is to be relied upon. However, the
fa3319.11-
-3-
learned Reference Court relied upon sale exemplar at Exh.18 for
deciding the L.A.R. No. 46 of 2006. There are five sale exemplars
out of which sale exemplar at Exh.21 is bonafide and comparable
sale exemplar, which can be safely relied upon. However, it was not
properly considered. He submitted that at the most the some
percentage of amount can be reduced for small size of land in the
sale exemplar Exh.21 and also the purchaser is adjacent i.e. abutting
land owner of the land in that sale exemplar. He submitted to allow
the appeals.
4. Learned A.G.P. for the respondent State and learned advocate
for respondent No.2 acquiring body strongly opposed the appeals
and submitted that the sale exemplars at Exh. 21 and 23 cannot be
relied upon. The sale exemplar Exh.21 is of a small portion of land of
11 Are. The acquired lands of the claimants are more than 3
Hectares. The sale exemplar Exh.23 also cannot be relied upon
because it is a sale exemplar of 54 Are land, which is seasonal
irrigated land. It is therefore submitted that the impugned judgment
of the learned Reference Court is legal and correct and no
interference is warranted in it.
5. Perused the record and proceedings, particularly the
pleadings, evidence, grounds of objections and the reasons and
fa3319.11-
-4-
findings in the impugned judgment and award. The Learned
Reference Court has relied upon the decision of the Land Reference
No. 42 of 2006 which is comparable sale exemplar on record. The
Reference Court has to rely upon the highest sale consideration. In
the case in hand, the sale exemplar at Exh.21 dated 26.04.1994 for
dry land admeasuring 11 Are for Rs.20,000/- i.e. Rs.1818/- per Are,
sold three years prior to the said acquisition proceeding. It is
bonafide and comparable sale exemplar. However, considering the
small size of the 11 Are land and the fact that one of the boundaries
in the sale exemplar at Exh.21 shows that the purchaser is the
contiguous owner of the said land, he must have paid the higher
amount for it. Therefore, 35% amount can be deducted on these two
counts. If 35% amount is deducted, it comes to Rs.1182/- per Are.
The sale exemplar Exh.21 is dated 26.4.1994 and the claimants land
was acquired by notification dated 05.08.1997. Thus, for three years
the claimant is entitled for cumulative escalation of the properties of
the appellants. If it is added then the claimant is entitled for
Rs.1693/- per Are for non-irrigated land and Rs.3386/- per Are for
irrigated land.
6. However, the claimants in appeal No. 3319 of 2011 have
established that there is well situated in block No. 309/436 for which
the claimants have got their E-statement, which is a part and parcel
fa3319.11-
-5-
of the award passed by the L.A.O. Therefore, the claimants in first
appeal No. 3319 of 2011 are entitled for compensation of Rs.3386/-
per Are. The claimants in first appeal No. 3319 of 2011, for
Potkharaba/barren land, admeasuring 04 Are, entitled for
compensation of Rs.846/- per Are.
7. In view of above, the learned Reference court erred in
awarding the inadequate amount of compensation without
considering comparable sale exemplar on record. The appeals
therefore, deserve to be allowed. The impugned judgment and
award deserve to be partly set aside. Hence, the following order:-
ORDER
I. The first appeals are partly allowed.
II. The impugned common judgments and awards are partly
set aside and modified as under:-
a) The appellants in first appeal No. 3319 of 2011 are
entitled to enhanced compensation @ Rs.3386/- per Are
for 46 Are and Rs.846/- per Are for 04 Are land which is
Potkharaba land, including amount of compensation which
was awarded and received by the appellant, with all other
statutory benefits like additional component, interest and
solatium as per provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
b) The appellants in first appeal Nos. 3320 of 2011, 3321
of 2011 and 3322 of 2011 are entitled to enhanced
fa3319.11-
-6-
compensation @ Rs.1693/- per Are for non irrigated lands
except the Potkharaba/barren land admeasuring 25 Are in
first appeal No. 3322 of 2011, for which the appellants in
the said appeal are entitled to Rs.846/- per Are, including
amount of compensation which was awarded and received
by the appellants, with all other statutory benefits like
additional component, interest and solatium as per
provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
III) The enhanced amount of compensation with interest and
other statutory benefits shall be deposited in this court
within a period of six months from today and on payment
of deficit Court fee, if any, it be paid to the appellants.
IV) It is made clear that the appellants shall not be entitled for
interest amount for the period of delay, (if any) which was
condoned by this Court while admitting the appeal.
V) The award be drawn up accordingly.
VI) The record and proceedings be sent back.
(SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.)
rlj/
Checking your session…