Bombay High Court
CHHABUBAI KARBHARI THORAT SINCE DECEASED THR LRS KARBHARI AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Disposal
- Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
Holding
The claimants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.2,000 per R for the acquired land.
Summary
The Thorat family members appealed against a judgment that had enhanced their compensation for land acquired by the State of Maharashtra to Rs.1,050 per R, based on an average of two sale values. They argued that the higher market value evidenced by a sale at Rs.2,142 per R should be the basis for compensation, seeking Rs.2,000 per R. The State contended that the lower average valuation was correct. The High Court examined the three sale instances presented, noting that all occurred before the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, and held that the cumulative evidence required using the higher valuation. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals and modified the award, fixing compensation at Rs.2,000 per R. The remainder of the lower court’s order was left unchanged.
Issues considered
- What method should be employed to determine fair compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act – average of sale values or the higher market value?
- Whether sale instances predating the Section 4 notification can be considered for valuation?
- Whether the original award of Rs.1,050 per R was inadequate in light of the evidence.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act — s. 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- market value
- valuation method
- Section 4
- Special Land Acquisition Officer
- appeal
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:27163
1 of 5 01-FA.1360.2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4403 OF 2016
CHHABUBAI KARBHARI THORAT
SINCE DECEASED, THROUGH LRS.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Mr. Chandrakant K. Shinde, Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for the Respondent-State.
…
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4404 OF 2016
KARBHARI SHAMRAO THORAT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
…
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4405 OF 2016
HAUSABAI MOHAN THORAT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
…
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4406 OF 2016
UTTAM SHAMRAO THORAT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
…
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4407 OF 2016
MOHAN SHAMRAO THORAT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
…
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 2nd JULY, 2026
2 of 5 01-FA.1360.2003
P.C.:-
1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. By the present appeals, the original claimants have
challenged the judgment and award dated 14.03.2016 passed by the
Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Beed in LAR Nos.369/2011,
371/2011, 375/2011, 370/2011 and 372/2011, whereby the
Reference Court partly allowed the reference and enhanced the
compensation to Rs.1050/- per R, though the claimants had claimed
compensation at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per R.
3. Learned counsel Mr. Shinde appearing for the appellants
submits that, in order to establish that the compensation awarded by
the Special Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate, the claimants
adduced sufficient evidence by placing on record three sale instances at
Exhibits 14, 15 and 16. He submits that, insofar as Exhibit-14 is
concerned, the Reference Court itself observed that the market value of
the land reflected from the said sale instance comes to Rs.2142/- per R.
Whereas from sale instance below Exhibit-16, it reflects that the market
value of the land therein comes to Rs.1342/- per R. The learned
Reference Court by taking into consideration the average of both these
market values reach to the conclusion that compensation for the
acquired land be paid @ of Rs.1700/- per R. By deducting the
3 of 5 01-FA.1360.2003
compensation already granted by SLAO, the learned Reference Court
enhanced the compensation to the tune of Rs.1050/- per R. He submits
that the learned Reference Court erred by considering the average of
both the sale deeds. The learned Reference Court ought to have
considered the sale instance which had higher market value i.e.
Exhibit-14. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed.
4. Per contra, Mr. R. B. Dhaware, learned AGP for the State
strongly opposed the prayer for enhancement of compensation. He
submits that both the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the
Reference Court have rightly appreciated the evidence on record.
According to him, the Reference Court rightly granted compensation @
of average of both the sale instances.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
and upon perusal of the impugned judgment and award, it is evident
that the Claimants relied upon three sale instances at Exhibits 14, 15
and 16. There is no dispute that all the said sale instances are prior to
the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act. It further appears that the learned Reference Court
relied upon the average market value in both the sale instances. The
learned Reference Court had no reason to rely on the average of
market values of both the sale instances. The Reference Court was
required to consider the cumulative effect of all the sale instances
4 of 5 01-FA.1360.2003
available on record.
6. It is significant to note that the Reference Court itself
recorded a finding that the market value reflected from Exhibit-14
worked out to Rs.2142/- per R. In such circumstances, the said sale
instance could not have been ignored altogether. Considering the
overall evidence available on record and the cumulative effect of all the
sale instances, this Court is of the opinion that the claimants are
entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per R for the
acquired land.
7. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
(i) The appeals are allowed.
(ii) The judgment and award dated 14.03.2016 passed by
the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Beed in LAR
Nos.369/2011, 371/2011, 375/2011, 370/2011 and
372/2011 are modified.
(iii) It is held that the claimants/appellants are entitled to
compensation at the rate of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two
Thousand only) per R for the acquired land and Clause
2 of operative part of the order passed by the learned
Reference Court stands modified to that extent.
5 of 5 01-FA.1360.2003
(iv) Rest of the order passed by the learned Reference Court
stands confirmed.
(v) The amount of compensation granted by Reference
Court be adjusted from the amount of enhanced
compensation granted by this Court.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Tauseef
Checking your session…