Bombay High Court
VENKAT SADASHIV KHIRSAGAR AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ANR
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The sale of adjacent Bagayat land prior to notification is a comparable sale, subject to 50% and 10% deductions, justifying compensation of Rs 32,130 per hectare, with interest and statutory benefits payable from the date of possession.
Summary
The appellants' land was acquired in 1985 for a canal project, with the Section 4 notification issued in 1988 and the award fixed at Rs 10,000 per hectare in 1991. Dissatisfied, they sought a higher market value, relying on a 1983 sale of 21 R of Bagayat land in the adjacent village of Malegaon for Rs 15,000. The reference court rejected this as non‑comparable and awarded Rs 18,000 per hectare. On appeal, the High Court held that the pre‑notification sale could be treated as comparable, applying a 50% deduction for dry land and an additional 10% deduction for the different village, resulting in a compensation rate of Rs 32,130 per hectare, and also awarded interest and statutory benefits per State of Maharashtra v. Kailas Shiva Rangari. The court directed the claimants to apply to the Collector for rental compensation and disposed of any pending civil applications.
Issues considered
- Whether a sale of land prior to the Section 4 notification and from an adjacent village can be treated as a comparable sale for determining market value under the Land Acquisition Act.
- Whether deductions of 50% for dry land and 10% for a different village are appropriate in such valuation.
- Whether interest and statutory benefits are payable from the date of possession.
- Whether the court can direct the claimants to seek rental compensation from the Collector.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4, 6
Subjects
- land acquisition
- market value
- comparable sale
- compensation
- interest
- statutory benefits
- rental compensation
- dry land
- deduction
- Section 4
- Section 6
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:37354
FA 423/07
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
39 FIRST APPEAL NO. 423 OF 2007
VENKAT SADASHIV KHIRSAGAR AND ORS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Gopal D. Kale
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.N. Morampalle
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
Dated : August 17, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. As the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1988, heard
finally with the consent of learned counsel for respective parties.
2. By this appeal, the appellants/original claimants assails the judgment
and award dated 26.9.2006 passed by the learned District Judge-1, Nilanga
in LAR No. 276/1998, seeking further enhancement for the acquired lands.
3. The lands of the claimants admeasuring 1 H. 55 R. from Survey No.
31 situated at village Jewari was acquired for Lower Terna Left Bank Canal.
The possession of the land was taken over in March 1985 and thereafter,
notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on
7.7.1988. The declaration under section 6 of the Act was published on
4.7.1989. The SLAO has declared the award on 30.3.1991 and awarded
compensation at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per H. i.e. Rs.100/- per R. The
claimants accepted the same amount under protest and being aggrieved by
the same, filed application before the Collector for proper determination of
the market value of acquired land. Before the reference court, the claimants
relied upon the sale instance, Exh. 45 dated 6.12.1983 of village Malegaon
FA 423/07
2
which is adjacent village, from where land was acquired in the present
matter, by which 21 R. land from Survey No. 76A was sold for Rs.15000/-.
Though the learned reference court referred the sale instance, Exh. 45, has
not considered the same as comparable sale instance as the same is for
Bagayat land and from different village. After considering the material
available on record, the reference court has awarded compensation at the
rate of Rs.18000/- per H. Therefore, being aggrieved by the same, the
present appeal is filed by the original claimants.
4. Mr. G.D.Kale, learned counsel for the appellants/original claimants
submits that once the reference court has referred the sale instance, Exh.
45, which is for Bagayat land, the fact remains that the said sale instance,
which was prior to section 4 notification, was duly proved. He submits that
as the villages Jewari and Malegaon are adjacent, the finding to that effect
is also recorded. Even the lands from the same villages were acquired and
therefore, he submits that the learned reference court ought to have
granted compensation by relying upon the sale instance, Exh. 45.
5. The learned AGP submits that the SLAO has rightly determined the
market value of the acquired land and the reference court has rightly not
relied upon the sale instance, Exh. 45, which is in respect of small piece of
land and that was from different village and also for Bagayat land. He
therefore prays to dismiss the appeal.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for respective parties, with their
assistance, I have gone through the record and proceedings and judgment
and award of the reference court. In the present case, though section 4
notification was published on 7.7.1988, the possession of the acquired land
was taken in March 1985 and therefore, in the present case, it would be
FA 423/07
3
relevant to consider the date of possession. Here in the present case, it is
the case of the original claimants/appellants that possession of the land was
taken in the month of March 1985 and therefore, sale instance dated
6.12.1983 which was prior to section 4 notification and from adjacent
village Malegaon can be considered as comparable sale instance as 21 R.
land from village Malegaon was sold for Rs.15,000/- and the rate comes to
Rs.71,400/- per H. and as the reference court has recorded that the said
sale instance in respect of Bagayat land, therefore, by applying deductions
of 50%, the same can be used as comparable sale instance in the present
case as in the present case, the land is dry land. As the sale instance, Exh.
45 is from other village, I further deem it appropriate to apply 10%
deduction while determine the market value, which comes to Rs. 64,260/-
per H. for Bagayat land. In view of the above calculation, as the acquired
land is dry land, I deem it appropriate that the reference court ought to
have granted compensation at the rate of Rs.32,130/- per H. for acquired
land.
7. As regards interest and statutory benefits are concerned, the same is
given from the date of taking over possession which is contrary to the law
laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra
vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (4) Mh.L.J. 457.
8. As regards rental compensation is concerned, the claimants are at
liberty to file appropriate application before Collector Latur for getting rental
compensation. Hence, I pass the following order.
ORDER
(I) The appeal is partly allowed.
(II) The appellants/original claimants are entitled to receive compensation
FA 423/07
4
at the rate of Rs.32,130/- per H. for their acquired lands.
(III) Appellants/original claimants are entitled to receive the interest and
statutory benefits in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this
Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari (supra).
(IV) The claimants are at liberty to file appropriate application before the
Collector, Latur for getting rental compensation. If such an application is
filed, the Collector Latur to consider the same by giving opportunity to both
the parties including the acquiring body and determine and pay the rental
compensation as per the Government policy, if already not paid.
(V) Pending civil application, if any, stand disposed of.
( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )
ssc/
Checking your session…