Bombay High Court
FILIP RAMKISHAN CHOLEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Disposal
- Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
- Bench
- SANJAY A DESHMUKH
Holding
The Court held that only a 20% deduction is justified, fixing compensation at Rs.4,000 per Are and awarding interest at 9% per annum for one year and 15% thereafter.
Summary
The appellants challenged the compensation awarded by the Land Reference Court for land acquired for a storage tank, arguing that the court had unjustifiably deducted 70-80% of the sale consideration based on a prior sale exemplar. They contended that the land was not for residential development and therefore the deduction was excessive, seeking a higher compensation rate. The State argued that the deduction was justified because the land had commercial potential and that interest should be awarded at 9% for one year and 15% thereafter. The High Court examined the evidence, found the deduction unreasonable, and held that a 20% deduction was appropriate, fixing compensation at Rs.4,000 per Are and granting the stipulated interest. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the earlier judgments were partly set aside, and the acquiring authority was directed to pay the enhanced amount with statutory benefits.
Issues considered
- Whether the deduction of 70-80% of the sale consideration in the compensation award is legally justified.
- What is the appropriate rate of compensation per Are for the acquired land.
- Whether the Supreme Court's decision in Rajalakshmi v. Special Tahsildar (2023) applies to these cases.
- Entitlement of interest on compensation: rate and period.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4, 5
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- deduction
- interest
- solatium
- valuation
- Land Acquisition Act
- appellate court
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:17572
902 FA NO. 353 OF 2010.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
902 FIRST APPEAL NO. 353 OF 2010
Manohar Ganpati Fulse
VERSUS
The State Of Maharahtra And Anr
...
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 348 OF 2010
Shivraj Balaji Kadam
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
...
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 352 OF 2010
Filip Ramkishan Chole
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
...
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 349 OF 2010
Meena Ram Gundale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
...
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 350 OF 2010
Muktabaidattatraya Chole
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
...
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 351 OF 2010
Aruna Ram Gundale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
1 of 7
(( 2 )) 902 FA NO. 353 OF 2010
…
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 354 OF 2010
Pandurang Muktiram Kadam
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
…
Mr. Vijay G. Sakolkar and Mr. H. B. Nandgavale, Advocates for
Appellant
Mr. S. B. Jadhav, AGP for Respondents/State
….
CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 08.04.2026
ORDER :-
1. These appeals are preferred against the common judgment
and award dated 02.04.2009 passed by the learned Land Reference
Court, Ahmedpur, District Latur. The following chart reflects all the
material particulars of the appeals.
Sr. First L.A.R. Block Acquire Compensation Compensation
No. Appeal No. No. No. d Area awarded by awarded by
L.A.O. Reference Court
1 353/2010 248/2 140 15 Are Rs. 585/- per Rs. 1,170/- per
005 Are Are
2 354/2010 252/2 141 11 Are Rs. 585/- per Rs. 1,170/- per
005 Are Are
3 348/2010 251/2 141 11 Are Rs. 585/- per Rs. 1,170/- per
005 Are Are
4 349/2010 255/2 138 65 Are Rs. 585/- per Rs. 1,170/- per
005 Are Are
5 350/2010 259/2 140 76 Are Rs. 585/- per Rs. 1,170/- per
005 Are Are
6 351/2010 254/2 138 53 Are Rs. 585/- per Rs. 1,170/- per
005 Are Are
2 of 7
(( 3 )) 902 FA NO. 353 OF 2010
7 352/2010 253/2 140 1 H 68 Rs. 585/- per Rs. 1,170/- per
005 Are Are Are
2. Though the acquiring body is served with notice by private
mode, none appeared to represent.
3. Learned advocate for the appellants pointed out the
pleadings, the evidence, the grounds of objections of the appeals and
the reasons and findings in the impugned judgments. He submitted
that the claimants’ lands were acquired for the purpose of
construction of the Yestar Storage Tank at village Dhalegaon, Taluka
Ahmedpur, District Latur, pursuant to the notification issued and
published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated
22.06.2000. He further pointed out the sale exemplar at Exhibit-22,
dated 20.07.2000 wherein 20 Are land was sold for a consideration of
Rs.1,00,000/- i.e., Rs.5,000/- per Are. It is submitted that the learned
Reference Court, while relying upon the sale exemplar at Exhibit-22,
deducted approximately 70 to 80% amount. He submitted that such
deduction is not justified in the eyes of law, as the claimants’ lands
were not acquired for the residential purposes, for which 1/3 land is
required for development of roads, open spaces and drainage facilities
etc. He further submitted that the learned Reference Court was not
justified in deducting such a huge amount and that such a substantial
3 of 7
(( 4 )) 902 FA NO. 353 OF 2010
deduction had caused injustice to the claimants. He prayed to allow
the appeals by enhancing the amount of compensation.
4. The learned AGP for the State strongly opposed the appeals
and submitted that the claimants’ claim has been rightly decided by
deducting 50% and above, as the land in the sale exemplar at Exhibit-
22 was sold for a business purpose. It has commercial potentialities.
Therefore, higher rate must have paid for it. He further submitted
that the learned Reference Court has rightly appreciated the evidence
and plausible and acceptable reasons are given for it.
5. The learned AGP pointed out clause No. 5 of the operative
part of the impugned judgments and submitted that the learned
Reference Court erred in awarding interest. He prayed that to correct
the same as the claimants are entitled to interest @ 9% per annum for
one year from the date of the award and thereafter @ 15% per
annum till realization of the amount.
6. The learned AGP relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Rajalakshmi VS. Special Tahsildar (LA)
Koyilandy And Another, (2023) 14 SCC 223, wherein it is held that
while determining compensation in land acquisition matters,
4 of 7
(( 5 )) 902 FA NO. 353 OF 2010
appropriate deductions towards development charges are permissible,
particularly when large extents of undeveloped land are compared
with smaller developed plots, and such deductions depend upon the
nature, location, and potential of the acquired land.
7. Perused the Record and Proceedings, particularly the
evidence, pleadings, the reasons and findings in the impugned
judgment and the sale Exemplar at Exhibit-22. The sale exemplar at
Exhibit-22 dated 20.07.2000 shows that 20 Are land was sold for a
consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- i.e., Rs.5,000/- per Are. While going
through the reasons recorded in paragraph No.19 of the impugned
judgment, the learned Reference Court has not given acceptable and
convincing reasons for such huge deduction. In such cases, where the
land was not acquired for the development of a layout plan or plots,
such a huge deduction is not justifiable. Considering all these reasons
and the peculiar facts of these cases, this Court is of the view that a
20% deduction is just and appropriate. If 20% amount out of sale
consideration for small size of land in sale exemplar Exhibit-22 is
deducted, then the rate comes to Rs.4,000/- per Are, for which the
claimants are entitled as compensation which is the market value of
the acquired land on the day of issuance of notification under Section
5 of 7
(( 6 )) 902 FA NO. 353 OF 2010
4 of the L.A. Act, 1894. Considering the above reasons case law of
Rajalakshmi VS. Special (Supra) is not applicable to the case in hand.
8. The argument of learned AGP is acceptable with regard to
clause No. 5 of the operative order of the impugned judgments, to the
extent that the claimants are entitled to interest @ 9% per annum for
one year from the date of the award and thereafter @ 15% per
annum till realization of the amount.
9. Considering the matter before this Court and the reasons
stated above, the appeals deserve to be allowed by partly setting aside
the impugned judgments and awards. Hence, the following order:
::ORDER::
I. The First Appeals are allowed.
II. The impugned judgments and awards are partly set aside
and modified as under:
(a) The appellants/claimants are entitled to compensation @
Rs.4,000/- per Are for their acquired lands, including the
earlier compensation awarded and received by them, along
with all statutory benefits like interest, component and
solatium as per the Provisions of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894.
III. Clause 5 of the operative order of the impugned judgments
and awards is modified as under:
The claimants are entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. for one
6 of 7
(( 7 )) 902 FA NO. 353 OF 2010
year from the date of the award i.e., 07.04.2004, and
thereafter @15% p.a. till realisation of the amount.
IV. It is clarified that the appellants / claimants are not entitled
to the interest and other statutory benefits for the period of
delay, if any, condoned by this Court.
V. The respondent-Acquiring Authority is directed to deposit
the enhanced amount of compensation along with all
statutory benefits like interest, component and solatium
etc., in this Court within six months.
VI. If court fee is not sufficiently paid, the appellants shall pay
deficit court fee. On receiving the same, the enhanced
amount of compensation be paid to the claimants.
VII. Award be drawn up accordingly.
VIII. Pending civil applications, if any, are disposed of.
IX. Record and Proceedings be sent back.
[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]
HRJadhav
7 of 7
Checking your session…