THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANRversusVIJAYKUMAR SHANKARRAO INGALE AND ANR

2026:BHC-AUG:44192

                                                        1
                                                                         47 FA 340 OF 2018

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                      47 FIRST APPEAL NO. 340 OF 2018

                               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
                                               VERSUS
                            VIJAYKUMAR SHANKARRAO INGALE AND ANR
                                                  ...
                     Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, Advocate for Appellants
                     Mr. Ajinkya S. Deshpande h/f. Mr. Amit S. Deshpande,
                     Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2
                                                  …

                                              CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                              DATED : 28th September 2026

                     P.C. :-

                     .         Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award dated

                     06.01.2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,

                     Nilanga in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.825 of 1998,

                     the appellants have presented this First Appeal.

                     2.        At the instance of the parties, the appeal is taken up for

                     final disposal considering the very short controversy involved

                     in the matter.

                     3.        The land of the respondents/claimants was acquired by

                     the appellants for rehabilitation of earthquake-affected

                     persons. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition

                     Act was published on 08.09.1995. Thereafter, pursuant to the
                               2
                                                 47 FA 340 OF 2018

subsequent procedure under the Act, an award came to be

passed on 11.06.1996. The Special Land Acquisition Officer

held the respondents/claimants entitled to compensation at

the rate of Rs.340/- per R.

4.    Feeling dissatisfied with the inadequate compensation,

the respondents/claimants approached the learned Civil

Judge, Senior Division, Nilanga, District Latur under Land

Acquisition Reference Case No.825 of 1998 taking recourse to

Section 18 of the Act.

5.    During the proceedings, the respondents/claimants

produced on record a sale deed dated 06.04.1992 at Exhibit

32 for the purpose of comparison and to ascertain the correct

valuation. The said sale deed pertained to the land adjacent to

the claimants' land situated in Survey No.138.

6.    The Reference Court observed that the subject matter

property of the sale instance at Exhibit 32 could be referred to

for fixing the proper valuation of the acquired land. The

Reference Court further observed, upon perusal of Exhibit 32

as also Exhibit 51, which is the non-agricultural/residential

purpose usage order issued by the Additional Tahsildar (N.A.),

that the said sale instance was the best piece of evidence,
                              3
                                                47 FA 340 OF 2018

being in respect of the land just adjacent to the acquired land

for determining the correct compensation.

7.    In view of the above, the Reference Court held that the

subject matter land of the respondents/claimants had fetched

non-agricultural potentiality. Thus, the Reference Court

granted enhancement in compensation at the rate of Rs.3.17

per sq. ft. Feeling dissatisfied thereby, the appellants have

presented this appeal.

8.    Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, learned Assistant Government

Pleader, would strongly submit that the Reference Court has

drawn an incorrect inference. He would submit that the sale

instance and the N.A. order at Exhibit 51 cannot be relied

solely on the basis for assessing the compensation at a per

sq.ft. rate. Mr. Sonpawale concludes his submissions with a

contention that the appeal be allowed and the judgment and

award under challenge be quashed and set aside.

9.    Mr. Ajinkya Deshpande h/f. Mr. Amit Deshpande,

learned Advocate for the claimants/respondents would

advocate the findings rendered by the Reference Court. He

would submit that the best evidence was produced by the

claimants before the Reference Court which is rightly accepted
                                4
                                                 47 FA 340 OF 2018

and relied upon for granting just and proper compensation.

With this, Mr. Deshpande prays for dismissal of the appeal.

10.     With the able assistance of the learned Advocates for

the respective parties, I have gone through the case papers.

11.     No doubt, the subject matter land of this appeal was not

officially or formally converted for non-agricultural use.

However, the Reference Court accepted the evidence i.e. the

sale instance which was in respect of a piece of land just

adjacent to the subject matter land. The said piece of land

which was cited by the claimants during the trial, was

converted       by     the     competent       authority       for

non-agricultural/residential usage. To that extent, there is no

dispute.

12.     Compensation under the Land Acquisition Act is a

matter of beneficial legislation. What is necessary is the

potentiality of the land for fixing appropriate compensation.

Although the subject matter land was not classified as non-

agricultural land, the compensation which would depend

upon the potentiality of such land, is rightly granted by the

Reference Court in comparison with the adjacent piece of

land.
                                 5
                                                   47 FA 340 OF 2018

13.   What is material is the correct valuation. The Reference

Court has rightly observed that although the Special Land

Acquisition Officer had fixed the compensation on the basis of

per R for the purpose of granting appropriate enhancement,

the claimants were entitled to compensation at the rate per sq.

ft. Obviously, these observations are in the light of the

evidence at Exhibits 32 and 51.

14.   For the sake of convenience, paragraph No.11 of the

impugned judgment and award is reproduced as follows :

      “11. Now, we have to consider, which sale instance
      brought on record by claimants and State is
      reliable. On perusal of the evidence led by
      claimants, it appears to me that the sale instance in
      respect of land survey No. 138 below Exh. 32 is
      adjoining to the acquired lands, which is executed
      on 06.04.1992 for the consideration of Rs. 6,000/-
      in respect of area 86 ft. X 22 ft. Therefore, sale
      instance of adjoining to acquire land is most
      important document for determination of market
      price of acquired lands and thus, I have no reason
      to discard said sale instance, merely because land
      in sale instance Exh. 32 is executed and purchased
      on footage basis and thus, I discard remaining sale
      instances brought by claimants as well as State-
      respondents on the record and adopted sale
      instance below Exh. 32. On perusal of the sale-deed
      Exh. 32, it appears to me that the land in sale
      instance bearing land survey No. 138 is converted
      to N. A. By revenue case No. 37/89 dated
      18.01.1989. On perusal of Exh. 51 brought by
      claimants on record, it appears to me that
      Additional Tahsildar (N. A.), Latur has converted
      land survey No. 138 of village Sarwadi for
      residential purpose, determining N. A. Assessment
                                 6
                                                   47 FA 340 OF 2018


      Rs. 230/-. On perusal of the sale instance Exh. 32
      and N. A. Order below Exh. 51, it appears to me
      that the land in sale instance being adjoining to the
      land survey No. 139 is having N. A. Potentiality.”


15.   For the reasons recorded above, there is no illegality or

infirmity in the findings recorded by the Reference Court. In

view of this, I find that no case is made out to call for

interference with the impugned judgment and award rendered

by the Reference Court.

16.   Hence, I pass the following order :

                            ORDER

      I.     The First Appeal stands dismissed.

      II.    The claimants/respondents are permitted
      to withdraw the balance compensation amount
      along with interest accrued thereon, deposited
      by the acquiring body in this Court, if not
      withdrawn earlier.

      III.   The Record and Proceedings be sent back
      to the learned Reference Court.

      IV.    The earlier security offered, if any, stands
      discharged.



                                     ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )
PRW