Bombay High Court
DATTA RAMCHANDRA KENDREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Disposal
- Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
- Bench
- SANJAY A DESHMUKH
Holding
The Court held that compensation must be based on the highest sale exemplar with appropriate deductions, that lands with water facilities are to be treated as irrigated, and that claimants are entitled to rental compensation at 9% per annum and escalated compensation as detailed.
Summary
The claimants appealed the awards of the Land Reference Court concerning the acquisition of their lands for two percolation tanks in Latur district. They argued that the court had incorrectly applied an aggregate method for compensation despite the existence of sale exemplars, and that the lands should be treated as irrigated, warranting double compensation rates. The court examined three sale exemplars, applied appropriate deductions (30% for certain appeals and 10% for others), and ordered escalation of values based on a 7% rate for the first three years and 10% for the next two years. It also held that the claimants were entitled to rental compensation at 9% per annum for the period between possession and the issuance of the Section 4 notification, as per Supreme Court precedent. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the awards were partially set aside, and the compensation was modified accordingly, with the State directed to pay the enhanced amounts within six months.
Issues considered
- The correct method of determining compensation when sale exemplars are on record.
- Whether the acquired lands should be classified as irrigated or non‑irrigated for compensation purposes.
- The appropriate deduction percentage to apply to the sale exemplar value.
- The entitlement to rental compensation and interest for the period between possession and notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.
- The applicability of escalation rates to the compensation amount.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation valuation
- sale exemplar
- irrigated land
- rental compensation
- interest
- solatium
- escalation
- Section 4 notification
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:19614
1 902 FA.378.2012 ORS.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
902 FIRST APPEAL NO. 378 OF 2012
CHHABUBAI KISHAN KENDRE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 388 OF 2012
SHAIKH JAVED YUSUF
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 377 OF 2012
DAIVSHALA BABURAO BHAGNURE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 363 OF 2012
KONDIBA SAMBHAJI KENDRE AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 374 OF 2012
BHAGWAT PANDURANG PAWAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 375 OF 2012
TULSHIRAM ATMARAM PAWAR DIED LRS
TULSABAI W/O TULSHIRAM PAWAR AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
2 902 FA.378.2012 ORS.odt
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 373 OF 2012
SUNITA GOVIND PAWAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 376 OF 2012
DATTA RAMCHANDRA KENDRE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
…
Mr. Vijay G. Sakolkar, Advocate for Appellants / Claimants.
Ms. Anuradha S. Mantri, AGP for Respondent No.1 / State.
Mr. Satish S. Manale, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
...
CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 10th April, 2026.
Per Court:
1 These appeals have been preferred by the claimants
against the judgments and awards dated 12 th September, 2011,
passed by the learned Land Reference Court, Tahsil Udgir, District
Latur, in Land Acquisition References, shown in the following chart:-
Sr. No. First Appeal No. LAR No.
1 First Appeal No.378 of 2012 LAR No.1819 of 2010
2 First Appeal No.375 of 2012 LAR No.1824 of 2010
3 First Appeal No.376 of 2012 LAR No.1820 of 2010
4 First Appeal No.373 of 2012 LAR No.1823 of 2010
5 First Appeal No.377 of 2012 LAR No.1822 of 2010
3 902 FA.378.2012 ORS.odt
Sr. No. First Appeal No. LAR No.
6 First Appeal No.374 of 2012 LAR No.1821 of 2010
7 First Appeal No.363 of 2012 LAR No.2216 of 2010
8 First Appeal No.388 of 2012 LAR No.2218 of 2010
2 The learned Advocate for the claimants pointed out the
pleadings, the evidence, the grounds of objections in the appeals and
the reasons and findings in the impugned judgments.
3 The learned Advocate for the claimants submitted that the
lands of the claimants / appellants in First Appeal Nos.363 and 388 of
2012 are acquired for the construction of Malhipparga Percolation Tank
No.8, at Village Malhipparga, Taluka Jalkot, District Latur, and in the
remaining first appeals, for the construction of Shivajinagar Tanda
Percolation Tank No.2, Village Malhipparga, Taluka Jalkot, District
Latur, as per the notification issued and published under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the said Act”), dated 3 rd
February, 2005 and 10th March, 2005 respectively. In First Appeal
Nos.363 and 388 of 2012, possession of the claimants’ lands was
taken on 17th December, 2002 and in the remaining first appeals the
possession was taken on 1st July, 2003. In First Appeal Nos.363 and
388 of 2012, the Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “LAO”) awarded
compensation @ Rs.889/- per R for non-irrigated land and Rs.1333/-
per R for seasonally irrigated land. In the remaining first appeals, the
4 902 FA.378.2012 ORS.odt
LAO awarded compensation @ Rs.907/- per R for non-irrigated land
and Rs.1360/- per R for seasonally irrigated land. The learned
Reference Court in all the claims, awarded compensation @
Rs.3,000/- per R for non-irrigated land and Rs.4,500/- per R for
seasonally irrigated land.
4 The learned Advocate for the claimants pointed out the
sale exemplar at Exhibit-13 dated 29th November, 1999, for 9 R land,
sold for consideration of Rs.64,000/- i.e. Rs.7,111/- per R. The learned
Reference Court has followed the aggregate method for determining
the compensation, which is not legal and correct when sale exemplars
are on record. He submitted that the said sale exemplar is of non-
irrigated land and the appellants’ / claimants’ lands are irrigated by
water supply of the wells. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for
double of that amount. He further submitted that some amount can be
deducted towards small size of the land in sale exemplar at Exhibit-13.
He prayed to award the compensation for non-irrigated and irrigated
lands accordingly. He also pointed out that the possession was taken
earlier to the notification under Section 4 of the said Act and therefore,
the claimants are entitled for rental compensation. He further pointed
out that the notification under Section 4 of the said Act was issued on
3rd February, 2005 and 10th March, 2005 and the sale exemplar at
Exhibit-13 is executed on 29th November, 1999. He, therefore, prayed
5 902 FA.378.2012 ORS.odt
for 10% five years cumulative escalation. He lastly prayed to allow the
appeals.
5 Mr. Manale, learned Advocate for the acquiring body
strongly opposed the appeals and submitted that the sale exemplar at
Exhibit-13 is pertaining to 9 R land only and the claimants’ lands are
more than one Acre. He pointed out paragraph No.16 of the impugned
judgment, in which it is held that some lands of the claimants are
seasonally irrigated. He pointed out the 7/12 extracts, which show that
there is no water facility available to some of the claimants’ lands. He
submitted to dismiss the appeals, as the reasons and findings in the
impugned judgments and awards are legal, correct and no interference
is warranted in it.
6 On perusal of the impugned judgments and awards
alongwith the record and proceedings, this Court found that there are
three sale exemplars at Exhibits-13 to 15. Out of them, the sale
exemplar at Exhibit-13 is of highest consideration. As per the settled
law, the said sale exemplar has to be relied upon. However, only 9 R
land is sold by the said sale exemplar and therefore, 30% amount
deserves to be deducted in First Appeal Nos.363 and 378 of 2012. In
the remaining first appeals, 30% deduction is not justifiable and only
10% deduction is justifiable. Nine Are land in sale exemplar at Exhibit-
6 902 FA.378.2012 ORS.odt
13 is sold for a consideration of Rs.64,000/- i.e. Rs.7,111/- per R. If
30% amount is deducted from Rs.7,111/-, then that amount comes to
Rs.4,977/- per R. If 10% amount is deducted from Rs.7,111/-, then it
comes to Rs.6399/- per R. The sale exemplar at Exhibit-13 is
executed on 29th November, 1999 and the appellants’ / claimants’
lands were acquired as per the notification issued under Section 4 of
the said Act on 3rd February, 2005 and 10th March, 2005. There is five
years gap between the sale exemplar at Exhibit-13 and the acquisition
process of the claimants’ lands. Therefore, for first three years 7% per
annum escalation, and for last two years 10% per annum escalation if
awarded, it would be just and proper. If it is cumulatively considered
for escalation in the price of the lands, then after 30% deduction the
amount comes to Rs.7,377/- per R and after 10% deduction the
amount comes to Rs.9,485/- per R. It is the market value of the non-
irrigated acquired lands of the claimants, which is shown in the chart of
final order.
7 In First Appeal Nos.363 and 388 of 2012, possession of
the claimants’ lands was taken on 17th December, 2002 and the
notification under Section 4 of the said Act was published in the village
on 10th March, 2005. In the remaining first appeals, the possession
was taken on 1st July, 2003 and the notification under Section 4 of the
said Act was published in the village on 6th April, 2005. For that period,
7 902 FA.378.2012 ORS.odt
the claimants are entitled for 9% interest as rental compensation, as
per law laid down by Honourable Supreme Court in the case of
Shankarrao Bhagwantrao patil VS. State of Maharashtra, (2022) 15
SCC 657.
8 As far as the nature of the lands as to whether those are
irrigated or not, the learned Advocate for the claimants pointed out the
7/12 extracts Exhibits 17 and 23 as well as the E-statements in respect
of lands in First Appeal Nos.378 and 373 of 2012, which show that
wells are situated in those acquired lands. The E-statements i.e. the
chart of the compensation awarded to the claimants’ lands with
different heads, also corroborates the same. However, the LAO has
held that those lands are seasonally irrigated. However, the law is
settled that when the water facility is available to the acquired land and
even though the agriculturist has not cultivated and harvested the
crops like sugarcane and wheat in it, it cannot be assumed that the
said land is non-irrigated, but the said land has to be considered as
irrigated, as per law laid down in by the Honourable Supreme Court in
the case of Chindha Fakira Patil (D) Through L.Rs. Vs. The Special
Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, (2011) 10 SCC 787. Therefore,
the claimants in those two appeals i.e. First Appeal Nos.373 and 378
of 2012 are entitled to double rate of compensation. The reasons and
findings of the learned Reference Court are not legal and correct as
8 902 FA.378.2012 ORS.odt
held above. It failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper
perspective. Therefore, interference is warranted in the impugned
judgment and award. The impugned judgments and awards deserve
to be partly set aside. The first appeals deserve to be partly allowed.
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 claimants are entitled to the compensation as
per the following chart:-
Rate Per R after adding
Area
Sr. F. A. LAR Survey Deduction Nature of Rate 5 Years Escalation
of
No. No. No. No. Upon Land Per R (Initial 3 Year 7% and
Land
10% for rest of 2 Years )
1 378 1819 486 2H 30 % Irrigated 4977 14755
of of 487 52 R
2012 2010 488
2 375 1824 466 51 R 10 % Non- 6399 9485
of of 467 Irrigated
2012 2010
3 376 1820 486 77 R 10 % Non- 6399 9485
of of Irrigated
2012 2010
4 373 1823 485 15 R 10 % Irrigated 12798 18972
of of
2012 2010
5 377 1822 468 50 R 10 % Non- 6399 9485
of of Irrigated
2012 2010
6 374 1821 469 32 R 10 % Non- 6399 9485
of of Irrigated
2012 2010
9 902 FA.378.2012 ORS.odt
Rate Per R after adding
Area
Sr. F. A. LAR Survey Deduction Nature of Rate 5 Years Escalation
of
No. No. No. No. Upon Land Per R (Initial 3 Year 7% and
Land
10% for rest of 2 Years )
7 363 2216 616 3H 30 % Non- 4977 7377
of of 620 6R Irrigated
2012 2010
8 388 2218 620 41 R 10 % Non- 6399 9485
of of Irrigated
2012 2010
b) The appellants / claimants are also entitled to
statutory benefits i.e. solatium, interest and
additional components etc. as per the provisions of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
c) The appellants / claimants are entitled to the rental
compensation @ 9% per annum from the date of
taking possession till issuance of notification under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as held
in paragraph No.7 of this judgment.
d) Rest of the judgment and award are confirmed.
e) Award be drawn up as per the above modification.
III. It is clarified that if delay has been condoned by this
Court while entertaining the appeals filed by the
claimants, the claimants shall not be entitled for
interest for the said period of delay.
IV. The Respondents are directed to deposit the
enhanced amount of compensation alongwith
statutory benefits, in this Court within a period of six
months from today.
10 902 FA.378.2012 ORS.odt
V. The claimants shall deposit the deficit court fees, if
any. On deposit of deficit court fees, the amount of
compensation be paid to claimants.
VI. Pending civil applications, if any, is disposed of.
VII. Record and proceedings be sent back.
[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]
nga
Checking your session…