THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANRversusSITARAM NARAYAN AGRAWAL DECEASED VISHWANATH SITARAM AGRAWAL

                                                                  7-FA-3993-2017.odt
                                         1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                       7 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3993 OF 2017

                 The State Of Maharashtra And Another
                               VERSUS
       Sitaram Narayan Agrawal Deceased Vishwanath Sitaram Agrawal

                                    AND
                        FIRST APPEAL NO. 3990 OF 2017

                 The State Of Maharashtra And Another
                               VERSUS
       Sitaram Narayan Agrawal Deceased Vishwanath Sitaram Agrawal

                                    ……
Mr. S.S. Dande, AGP for Appellant-State
Mr. V.R. Dhorde, Advocate for the Respondent-Claimant in both FAs
                                    ……

                                  CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                  DATE       : 04 SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :

1.     Heard learned AGP appearing for the appellant-State and learned

counsel appearing for the respondent-claimant.


2.     These appeals take exception to the Judgment and Award dated

16.02.2012 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Amalner, in Land Acquisition Reference No.672 of 1993 and the Judgment

and Award dated 27.01.2012 passed in Land Acquisition Reference No.671

of 1993, whereby the learned Reference Court partly allowed the references

under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and enhanced the

compensation by determining the market value of the acquired lands at the

rate of Rs.15/- per sq. ft., along with the statutory benefits.
                                                               7-FA-3993-2017.odt
                                      2


3.     The lands of the respondent-claimant admeasuring 7 R and 46 R

from Gat Nos.1149 and 1148 respectively, situated at Mouje Chopda, Taluka

Chopda, District Jalgaon, were acquired for construction of Shirpur-Raver

Road. The Land Acquisition Officer passed the award and determined

compensation at Rs.2,262.40/- for the land from Gat No.1149 and

Rs.14,867/- for the land from Gat No.1148. Being dissatisfied with the

compensation so determined, the respondent-claimant accepted the amount

under protest and sought references under Section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894.


4.     Before the learned Reference Court, the claimant relied upon two

sale instances. The first sale instance was dated 31.03.1976, whereby land

admeasuring 57.7 sq. mtrs. situated at Chopda was sold for consideration of

Rs.15,000/-. The second sale instance was dated 30.06.1976, whereby land

admeasuring about 36.8 sq. mtrs. situated within the Chopda Municipal

town area was sold for consideration of Rs.4,000/-. The learned Reference

Court relied upon the first sale instance and determined the market value of

the acquired land at the rate of Rs.15/- per sq. ft. Being aggrieved by the

same, the present appeals are filed by the Appellant-State.


5.     Learned AGP for the appellant-State submits that the learned

Reference Court has erred in placing reliance upon the sale instance dated

31.03.1976 without making any appropriate deduction. According to him,
                                                                   7-FA-3993-2017.odt
                                       3

the sale instance relates to a very small piece of land and, therefore, the rate

reflected therein could not have been adopted for acquisition of a

substantially larger tract of land. He further submits that the acquired land

was required for construction of Shirpur-Raver Road and, therefore, the sale

transaction could not be treated as a comparable instance without

appropriate adjustment. He also points out that the second sale instance

dated 30.06.1976 relates to land admeasuring about 36.8 sq. mtrs. sold for

Rs.4,000/-, which works out to approximately Rs.10.10 per sq. ft. He,

therefore, submits that the market value fixed at Rs.15/- per sq. ft. is on the

higher side and deserves to be reduced.


6.     Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant submits that

both the sale instances are of lands situated at Chopda and relate to a period

prior to the acquisition. He submits that the acquired lands were non-

agricultural lands situated at Chopda and that the location of the land,

particularly its proximity to Shirpur-Raver Road and the surrounding

development, justified a higher valuation. He further submits that the

learned Reference Court has, in fact, not adopted the rate reflected in the

first sale instance but has determined the market value at a substantially

lower rate of Rs.15/- per sq. ft. He submits that the said determination is

reasonable and calls for no interference.


7.     I have considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned

Judgments and Awards and the material placed on record.
                                                                7-FA-3993-2017.odt
                                     4


8.     There is no dispute that the acquired lands are situated at Chopda

and that the sale instances relied upon by the claimant also relate to lands

situated at Chopda. The first sale instance dated 31.03.1976 is prior to the

acquisition and relates to non-agricultural land situated in the same town.

Thus, it cannot be said that the sale instance has no bearing upon the

valuation of the acquired lands.


9.     The principal objection raised by the learned AGP is that the sale

instance relates to a small piece of land and, therefore, deduction ought to

have been made. The submission, in principle, deserves consideration.

However, the question before this Court is whether the ultimate rate of

Rs.15/- per sq. ft. determined by the learned Reference Court is excessive or

otherwise unsupported by the evidence.


10.    The relevant calculations arising from the sale instances may be

noticed. The sale instance dated 31.03.1976 concerns land admeasuring

57.7 sq. mtrs. sold for Rs.15,000/-. Since one square metre comprises

approximately 10.764 sq. ft., the said area works out to approximately

620.83 sq. ft. Thus, the rate reflected by the said sale instance comes to

approximately Rs.24.15/- per sq. ft. Even if 30% deduction, as suggested by

the learned AGP, is applied to the said rate, the resultant rate would be

approximately Rs.16.90/- per sq. ft. The learned Reference Court, however,

has determined the market value at Rs.15/- per sq. ft. Thus, the rate
                                                                   7-FA-3993-2017.odt
                                        5

determined by the learned Reference Court is already lower than the rate

which would result even after applying the proposed 30% deduction.


11.     The above calculation itself demonstrates that the rate of Rs.15/- per

sq. ft. determined by the learned Reference Court is lower than the rate that

would result even after applying the 30% deduction suggested by the

learned AGP to the first sale instance. Further, the second sale instance

reflects a rate of approximately Rs.10.10/- per sq. ft. Thus, the rate of

Rs.15/- per sq. ft. falls between the two sale instances and cannot, in the

circumstances of the case, be said to be arbitrary or excessive.


12.     The learned Reference Court has also taken into consideration the

location of the acquired land and the fact that the claimant's land was non-

agricultural in nature. The claimant's evidence further indicates the location

of the land in relation to Shirpur-Raver Road and the surrounding area. At

the same time, the Reference Court has not adopted the entire rate reflected

in the first sale instance, but has moderated the same while determining the

market value at Rs.15/- per sq. ft.


13.     Merely because the sale instance relied upon relates to a smaller

area, a further deduction is not warranted in the facts of the present case

when the rate ultimately fixed by the Reference Court is already below the

rate which would emerge after the 30% deduction suggested by the State.

The second sale instance also lends support to the conclusion that the rate of

Rs.15/- per sq. ft. is not excessive.
                                                                      7-FA-3993-2017.odt
                                          6


14.        In this view of the matter, the findings recorded by the learned

Reference Court do not suffer from any perversity, illegality or material

irregularity     warranting    interference    in   appellate   jurisdiction.     The

compensation determined at the rate of Rs.15/- per sq. ft. appears to be just

and reasonable. Consequently, both the appeals, being devoid of merit, are

liable to be dismissed.


15.        Both the First Appeas are dismissed.


16.        The respondent-claimant shall be entitled to withdraw the amount, if

any, deposited by the State/Acquiring Body in terms of the impugned

Judgments and Awards, along with the interest accrued thereon, in

accordance with law.


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


18         The Record and Proceedings, if received, be sent back to the

concerned Court.



                                               [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                         JUDGE
S P Rane