Bombay High Court
GUNDOPANT BABACHARYA JOSHI DIED THR. LRS. SHAKUNTALA AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHA,THROUGH COLLECTOR,LATUR
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The reference court correctly determined the market value of the acquired lands, and no further enhancement of compensation is warranted.
Summary
The appellants challenged the compensation awarded for land acquired in 1987 for a percolation tank at Karajgaon, claiming the reference court erred in valuing the land and seeking further enhancement beyond the Rs 50,000 per hectare fixed by the court. The original award by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was Rs 160 per R, which was appealed under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, leading the reference court to increase the compensation. The appellants relied on a sale instance of Bagayat land in the village to argue for a higher value. The bench examined the sale evidence, noted that the acquired lands were Jirayat lands, and concluded that the reference court had correctly applied the sale instance in determining market value. Consequently, the court found no basis for further enhancement and dismissed all the first appeals. The pending civil application to condone delay and set aside abatement was allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the reference court erred in determining the market value of the acquired Jirayat lands for compensation purposes
- Whether the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act should be further enhanced beyond Rs 50,000 per hectare
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act — s. 18, 4, 6
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- market value
- enhancement
- Jirayat land
- Section 18
- percolation tank
- reference court
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:41132
FA 396/05 & Ors.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
5 FIRST APPEAL NO. 396 OF 2005
NANDKUMAR NARAYANACHARYA JOSHI
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A.B. Kharosekar
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Dande
…
6 FIRST APPEAL NO. 397 OF 2005
GUNDOPANT BABACHARYA JOSHI DIED THR. LRS. SHAKUNTALA AND ORS.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHA,THROUGH COLLECTOR,LATUR
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Barde Parag Vijay
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. D.R. Korde
…
49 FIRST APPEAL NO. 398 OF 2005
DILIPKUMAR NARAYANCHARYA JOSHI
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A.B. Kharosekar
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. A.D. Wange
…
FIRST APPEAL NO. 395 OF 2005
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8601 OF 2026
VISHNU GOVINDACHARYA JOSHI
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. R.P. Adgaonkar
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Dande
…
FIRST APPEAL NO. 399 OF 2005
GUNDOPANT BABACHARYA JOSHI
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. R.P. Adgaonkar
AGP for Respondents: Mr. A.M. Phule
...
FA 396/05 & Ors.
2
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
Dated : August 31, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. FA Nos. 395 and 399 of 2005 are not on board. Taken on Taken on
board.
2. Civil Application No. 8601/2026 is filed in First Appeal No. 395/2005
for bringing on record legal representatives of deceased Vishnu Joshi by
condoning the delay caused in filing the application and for setting aside the
abatement, if any. In view of the averments made in the application, the
application is allowed. Delay, if any, is condoned. Abatment, if any, is set
aside. Legal representatives of deceased Vishnu Joshi be brought on record.
Necessary amendment be carried out.
3. As the present acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year
1987, heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the
respective parties.
4. By these appeals, the appellants/original claimants assail the
judgment and award dated 26.4.2001 passed by the learned Jt. District
Judge, Latur in LAR No. 1190/1992, 1194/1992, 1192/1992, 1191/1992
and 1193/1992, whereby the reference court has enhanced the
compensation by granting rate of Rs.50,000/- per H. and therefore, for
seeking further enhancement the present appeals are filed.
5. The land of the claimants situated at village Karajgaon, Taluka Ausa
were acquired for construction of percolation tank No. 1 at village
Karajgaon. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was
published on 17.9.1987. Notification under section 6 was published on
FA 396/05 & Ors.
3
10.5.1990. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) has passed the
award on 21.4.1992 and granted compensation at the rate of Rs.160/- per
R. Being dissatisfied with the award of the SLAO, the claimants filed an
applications before the Collector for referring the matters under section 18
of the Act for proper determination of the market value of the acquired
lands. The learned reference court after going through the evidence and
examining the record, enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.
50,000/- per H. Being dissatisfied with the same, the present appeals are
filed by the original claimants.
6. The learned counsel for the original claimants/appellants submits that
the learned reference court has wrongly determined the market value of the
acquired lands by relying upon the sale instance and other record and
therefore, the same needs to be enhanced.
7. The learned AGPs appearing for the State supports the impugned
judgment and order passed by the reference court and prays to dismiss the
appeals.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, with their
assistance I have gone through the record and proceedings and the
impugned judgment and award of the reference court. After going through
the same, I find that the claimants relied upon sale instance from village
Karajgaon below Exh. 19 by which 1 Acre 20 R. Bagayat land was sold for
Rs.40,000/-. As well was situated in the land involved in sale instance Exh.
19, the said land was treated as Bagayat. After going through the same and
7/12 extracts of the acquired land, I find that acquired lands are admittedly
Jirayat lands and the learned reference court, after considering the sale
instance below Exh. 19 has determined the compensation correctly and
FA 396/05 & Ors.
4
there is no further scope for further enhancement considering the sale
instance. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned
judgment and award. Hence, all the first appeals are devoid of merits and
the same are dismissed.
9. Pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of.
( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )
ssc/
Checking your session…