BABASAHEB GANPATRAO MANE DIED THR LRS SANJAY BABASAHEB MANE AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:38055
             Dilwale                                    1                  905-FA-3657-16.odt




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 905 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3657 OF 2016

              Babasaheb Ganpatrao Mane Died Thr Lrs Sanjay Babasaheb Mane & Ors
                                              VERSUS
                                 The State Of Maharashtra & Ors
                                                 ...
             Advocate for Appellants : Mr. Satish S. Manale
             AGP for Respondent-State: Mr. D. R. Korde
             Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anil M. Gaikwad
                                                 ...

                                     CORAM        : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                     DATE         : 18.08.2026

             PER COURT :
             1.        Admit

             2.        As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 2009, the appeal is

             being heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the respective

             parties.

             3.        By this appeal, the appellants–claimants are aggrieved by the

             judgment and award dated 08.03.2016 passed by the 3 rd Joint Civil

             Judge, Senior Division in LAR No.512/2011, whereby the learned

             Reference Court has enhanced the compensation; however, according to

             the appellants–claimants, they are entitled to further enhancement.

             4.        The land bearing Survey No.151, admeasuring 68 R, situated at

             village Darji Borgaon, Taluka Renapur Dist. Latur, was acquired for the

             construction of a 33 KV Electricity Sub-station. The notification under
Dilwale                                     2                  905-FA-3657-16.odt


Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 02.12.2009, the

possession was taken prior thereto on 16.01.2009. The Special Land

Acquisition Officer declared the award on 23.05.2011 and awarded

compensation at the rate of Rs.4,48,000/- per H (Rs.4,480/- per R). The

claimants claimed compensation @ Rs.100 per sq. ft. The learned

reference court enhanced the same to Rs.5,50,000/- per H (Rs.5500/- per

R).

5.        The learned counsel for the appellants claimants submits that

before the learned Reference Court, the claimants relied upon two sale

instances, namely, Exhibit 21 dated 07.02.2000 and Exhibit 22 dated

11.06.2001. The claimants also placed on record Najari Nakasha at

Exhibit 24, village map at Exhibit 25, toach maps at Exhibits 50 and 51.

He further submits that the learned Reference Court ought to have relied

upon sale instances at Exhibits 21 and 22 which were prior to notification

under Section 4, but the learned Reference Court erroneously refuse to

rely on the same mainly on the ground that the transactions were in

respect of small plots, the consideration was shown on square feet basis

and the lands were not converted to non-agricultural use.

6.        He further submits that the learned Reference court ought to have

granted 10% escalation as the possession was taken prior to about 11

months from the date of notification under Section 4. Thus he prays to

allow the first appeal by enhancing the compensation.

7.        Per contra, Mr. Gaikwad, learned counsel appearing for respondent
Dilwale                                      3                  905-FA-3657-16.odt


No.3, supports the impugned judgment and award. He submits that the

sale instances at Exhibits 21 and 22 pertain to small pieces of land and

are not comparable with the acquired bagayat land. He, therefore,

submits that the learned Reference Court has rightly discarded the said

sale instances and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

8.        Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and

upon perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that the acquired land

bearing Survey No.151 is situated adjoining the gaothan area. It is also

not in dispute that the sale instances at Exhibits 21 and 22 pertain to the

same village and the lands covered thereunder are situated in the vicinity

of the acquired land. By the sale instance at Exhibit 21 a plot adm.750 sq.

ft was sold for Rs.7500/- on 07.02.2000, whereas by the sale instance at

Exhibit 22 a plot adm. 700 sq. ft was sold for Rs.6000/- per sq. ft on

12.06.2001, which fetch market value of Rs.10/- per sq. ft. and Rs.8.5/-

per sq. ft respectively.

9.        The learned Reference Court has discarded the sale instances

mainly on the ground that the transactions were in respect of small plots,

the consideration was calculated on square feet basis and the lands were

not converted for non-agricultural use. In my considered view, the said

reasoning cannot be accepted in its entirety.

10.       While determining the market value of the acquired land, the Court

is required to consider the potentiality of the land. Merely because the

land covered by the sale instance was not formally converted for non-
Dilwale                                       4                   905-FA-3657-16.odt


agricultural use, the sale instance cannot be discarded if the land

possesses non-agricultural potentiality. The location of the acquired land,

its proximity to the gaothan and the development in the surrounding area

are relevant factors for determining such potentiality.

11.       In the present case, the sale instances at Exhibits 21 and 22 pertain

to the same village and the lands covered thereunder are situated in the

vicinity of the acquired land. Therefore, there is no reason to discard the

said sale instances altogether. Hence, I am inclined to treat sale instance

at Exhibit 21 as comparable sale instance, which fetches market value of

Rs.10/- per sq. ft. As 1H (1,07,639 sq. ft.) land was acquired, the market

value of acquired land would come to Rs.10,76,390/- per H.

12.       However, since the sale transactions pertain to small pieces of land,

appropriate deduction is required to be applied while determining the

market value of the larger extent of acquired land. Considering the sale

instances and the material placed on record, this Court is of the opinion

that the market value reflected in the sale instances can be taken into

consideration by applying appropriate escalation and deduction.

13.       The sale instances are of the year 2000. Considering the gap

between the sale transactions and the relevant date of notification,

cumulative escalation at the rate of 10% per annum for five years would

be just and proper whereby the market value would come to

Rs.17,33,536/- per H.

14.       Since the sale instances pertain to small pieces of land and the
Dilwale                                       5                   905-FA-3657-16.odt


acquired land is a larger extent of bagayat land, deduction to the extent

of 50% is required to be applied towards development and other relevant

factors. After applying deduction of 50%, the market value comes to

Rs.8,66,768/- per H.

15.       Accordingly, the appellants–claimants are entitled to receive

compensation at the rate of Rs.8,66,768/- per H along with all statutory

benefits and interest. Hence, I pass following order:-

                                    ORDER

      I.      The appeal is accordingly partly allowed.

      II.     The claimants are entitled to receive compensation @

              Rs.8,66,768/- per H and to that extent impugned award

              stands modified.

      III.    The claimants shall be entitled to receive interest under

              Section 28 from the date of award as per Full Bench

              judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash

              Shiva Rangari, 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457.

      IV.     Rest of the impugned award stands confirmed.

      V.      Modified award be drawn accordingly.

      VI.     Deficit Court fee be paid.

      VII.    Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.



                                            [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                      JUDGE