Bombay High Court
M.S.E.B.THR.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER JALGAONversusSONA PIRA SONWANE AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANJAY A DESHMUKH
Holding
The High Court held that the compensation was correctly determined in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act and dismissed the appeals.
Summary
The Maharashtra State Electricity Board (M.S.E.B.) filed four separate appeals before the Bombay High Court challenging the compensation awards granted by the Jalgaon Land Reference Court in respect of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appellants contended that the compensation was improperly assessed and excessively high, alleging misappreciation of evidence. The State, represented by the Attorney General, argued that the Reference Court correctly determined market value based on the notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and that the appeals lacked merit. The High Court examined the valuation reports, sale exemplars, and the valuer’s testimony, finding that the Reference Court had properly applied the law and evidence. It also noted that a similar appeal (First Appeal No. 573 of 1998) had been withdrawn and dismissed, reinforcing the lack of substantive grounds. Consequently, the Court dismissed all four appeals without costs, upholding the compensation awards.
Issues considered
- Whether the compensation awarded by the Land Reference Court was improperly determined and excessive.
- Whether the market value of the acquired land, as per the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was correctly applied.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- valuation
- Market value
- Section 4
- Land Reference Court
- appeal
- Maharashtra State Electricity Board
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:7990
fa572.98-
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
912 FIRST APPEAL NO. 572 OF 1998
M.S.E.B. through the Executive Engineer, Bhusawal
VERSUS
Ramdas Shamrao Pawar And Anr
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Anil M. Gaikwad
AGP for Respondent No.2: Mr. V.V. Jahagirdar
Advocate for Respondent Nos.1-A to 1-D : Mr. Shubham Shinde
…..
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 580 OF 1998
M.S.E.B. through the Executive Engineer, Jalgaon
VERSUS
Shamrao Mango Suralkar And Anr.
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Anil M. Gaikwad
AGP for Respondent No.2: Mr. V.V. Jahagirdar
…..
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3946 OF 2016
M.S.E.B. through the Executive Engineer, Jalgaon
VERSUS
Sona Pira Sonwane and others
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Anil M. Gaikwad
AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3: Mr. V.V. Jahagirdar
…..
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1037 OF 2020
M.S.E.B. through the Executive Engineer, Jalgaon
VERSUS
Mathabai Goba Patil and others
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Vijay Y. Patil
AGP for Respondent Nos.3 and 4: Mr. V.V. Jahagirdar
Advocate for Respondents-claimants : Ms. Sakshi Kale h/f Mr. A.B.
Kale
…..
fa572.98-
-2-
CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATED : 20th FEBRUARY, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. All these appeals are preferred against the judgments and award
passed by the learned Land Reference Court, Jalgaon, as per the
following chart:-
Sr. No. First appeal No. L.A.R. No. Date of judgment
1 572 of 1998 117 of 1993 30.09.1997
2 580 of 1998 220 of 1993 30.09.1997
3 3946 of 2016 183 of 1993 21.04.1998
4 1037 of 2020 224 of 1993 21.04.1998
2. The learned advocates for the appellants, in the respective
appeals, submitted that the amount of compensation is not properly
determined by the learned Reference Court and exorbitant amount of
compensation is awarded. The evidence was not properly appreciated
and therefore, interference is warranted in the impugned judgments and
award.
3. The learned A.G.P. for the respondent State and advocate for the
respondents-claimants strongly opposed the appeals and submitted that
there is no substance in the grounds of objections raised in the appeals.
It is submitted that the learned Reference Court has rightly determined
the amount of compensation as per the market value of the acquired
fa572.98-
-3-
land as per the notification issued/published under Section 4of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 19.09.1996. There is no substance in the
grounds of objections raised in the appeals. The appeals therefore,
deserve to be dismissed. It is lastly prayed to dismiss the appeals.
4. Perused the pleadings, evidence, grounds of objections in the
appeals and the reasons and findings in the impugnment judgments and
award of the learned Reference Court. The learned Reference Court
determined the market value of the acquired houses by considering the
sale exemplar Exh.25 and the valuation report. The valuer has deposed
before the learned Reference Court and also proved the valuer’s report
at Exh.30. The learned Reference Court has rightly evaluated the
evidence and came to the right conclusion. Furthermore, it is pointed
out that in similarly situated case i.e. first appeal No. 573 of 1998 and
other connected appeals, it was submitted on behalf of the learned
advocate for the appellants, Mr. H.T. Joshi, for the appellants therein to
withdraw those appeals. The withdrawal was allowed and the appeals
were disposed of on 04.04.2007. On this count also, this Court finds
that there is no substance in the objection of appeals and the appeals
therefore, disposed of as sans merit. The appeals are dismissed with
no order as to costs.
(SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.)
rlj/
Checking your session…