SHANTA PREMKUMARJI LOYAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. COLLECTOR OSMANABAD AND ORS.

2026:BHC-AUG:41280



                                                              First Appeal No.4175 of 2023.odt


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 FIRST APPEAL NO.4175 OF 2023

            Shanta Premkumarji Loya,
            Age- 45 yrs, Occ: Agri and Household,
            R/o. Prekishor & Compnay, Mondha,
            Selu, Tq. Selu, Dist. Parbhani                           ..Appellant

                          Vs.

            1]       The State of Maharashtra,
                     Through The District Collector,
                     Osmanabad.

            2]       The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
                     Nanded P-T. M.I.W.-2, Nanded,
                     Dist. Nanded

            3]       The Commissioner,
                     Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corporation,
                     Nanded.                                         ..Respondents

                                             ----
            Mr.Pravin B. Rakhunde, Advocate for appellant
            Mr.S.N.Kendre, AGPfor respondent nos.1 and 2
            Mr.Suhas P. Urgunde, Advocate for respondent no.3
                                             ----

                                    CORAM :            AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                               RESERVED ON :           SEPTEMBER 01, 2026
                             PRONOUNCED ON :           SEPTEMBER 07, 2026
            ORDER :-

                          Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award dated

            30.06.2023 passed by learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division,

            Nanded, in Land Acquisition Reference No.135 of 2011, the claimant

            has filed this appeal for enhancement.
                                    2                   First Appeal No.4175 of 2023



2.         Appellant’s land admeasuring 2R situated at survey

no.2/2 at Mouje Elichpur, Dist. Nanded was acquired by the

respondent nos.2 and 3 for JNNURNS Treatment scheme.                       After

completion of the entire procedure, the compensation for the land

acquisition was declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The

compensation was      granted to    the appellant at the rate of

Rs.3,60,000/- per hectare. Being dissatisfied thereby the appellant

filed the land acquisition reference under Section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act. The appellant claimed compensation at the rate of

Rs.2,50,000/- per R. In support of the claim, two sale instances were

produced on record. It was contended that the sale instances were

much prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition

Act.


3.         The trial court heard the parties, scrutinised the evidence

and arrived at the conclusion to hold the valuation of the land at the

rate of Rs.2,25,000/- per R. However, by causing deduction at the

rate of 70% towards development charges and allied expenses the

enhancement was granted at the rate of Rs.67,500/- per R. Feeling

aggrieved thereby, the claimant is before this court.
                                       3                    First Appeal No.4175 of 2023



4.          Mr.Rakhunde,     learned       Advocate   for     the      appellant,

submits that the present appeal being prosecuted is on incorrect

valuation of the appellant’s land, as also on the objection raised in

respect of the deductions.


5.          Considering the short issue involved, the appeal is taken

up for final disposal at admission stage by consent of the parties.


6.          Mr.Rakhunde, learned advocate for the appellant submits

that although the deductions towards development and ancillary

charges are permissible, however the quantum of deductions is

grossly excessive and unjustifiable. He would submit that the land

valuation also needs to be on higher side.


7.          Mr.Urgunde, learned advocate for the respondent -

acquiring body would however object such contention.                    He would

submit that it is a practice under law that the deductions ought to be

made towards development charges and ancillary expenses.                      Thus,

he would justify the deductions.


8.          Considered   the   submissions       advanced          by      learned

advocate for the parties. As far as the valuation is concerned, I have

gone through the findings rendered by the reference court. I do not

find any infirmity therein. However, I find an issue before me is for
                                    4                First Appeal No.4175 of 2023



consideration in this appeal as regards to deduction. The valuation

for the purpose of carving out the compensation is not much in

dispute.   The only issue is of quantum of deduction towards

development charges. The argument advanced by learned advocate

for the appellant finds me convincing that considering the area of

acquisition, i.e. 2 R which is admittedly located on a developed road,

deduction at the rate of 70% is grossly excessive.

9.          On a query, Mr.Urgunde, learned advocate for the

respondent – acquiring body fairly accepts that there are no

parameters for fixing the quantum of deductions.         On the other

hand, the law laid down by several judgments of this courts is that it

is the discretion of the reference court to fix the deduction value. It

is expected that the reference court applies its mind judiciously and

considering several aspects for the purpose of deductions towards

development charges.

10.         In my considered view, the purpose of acquisition of land,

the location, area, quality and character of the acquired land, etc.

are the predominant components which govern the value of

deduction towards development charges.

11.         In the case in hand, it is a matter of fact that the

acquired land is only 2 R. The same is situated on a developed road
                                     5                First Appeal No.4175 of 2023



itself. Obviously, it is not for any agricultural use. The purpose of

land acquisition is to settle a housing project under             JNNURNS

scheme. Obviously, by no stretch of imagination it could be accepted

that the development charges would be at the rate of 70% of

valuation of land.    In view of this, in my considered view, the

deduction towards development charges need to be reduced to an

adequate figure. Considering the components as expressed above, I

deem it appropriate to hold the appropriate and proper rate of

deduction would be 35% instead of 70% as is held by the reference

court.

12.         In view of the above, in my opinion, the appellant

deserves enhancement in the compensation by reducing the

quantum of development charges from 70% to 35%. As such, the

award needs to be modified to that extent.         Hence, I pass the

following order :-

                                ORDER

(i)         The First Appeal is partly allowed.

(ii)        The impugned judgment and award is modified to the

extent of Clause 2 of operative order granting compensation at the

rate of Rs.1,46,250/- per R instead of Rs.67,500/- per R.
                                      6                 First Appeal No.4175 of 2023



(iii)        Rest of the terms of the impugned award to stand

unaltered.

(iv)         Interest part shall be governed by the principles laid

down by full bench judgment of this court in the case of State of

Maharashtra Vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016(4) All MR 513.


(v)          The acquiring body shall deposit the amount of enhanced

compensation together with accrued interest in this court within a

period of six months from today. Upon such deposit, the appellant is

permitted to withdraw such amount without making any separate

Civil Application


(vi)         The appellants shall pay the deficit court fees, if any.




                                   [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
                                 ………..


KBP