Bombay High Court
HAUSABAI MOHAN THORATversusTHE 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 appellants, members of the Thorat family, challenged a judgment that awarded them Rs.1,050 per R as compensation for land acquired by the State of Maharashtra. They argued that the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the Reference Court erred by averaging the market values from two sale instances, ignoring a higher valuation of Rs.2,142 per R shown in Exhibit‑14. The State contended that the average of the two sale instances was the correct method of valuation. The High Court examined the evidence, noting that all sale instances pre‑dated the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and that the cumulative effect of the evidence required consideration of the higher market value. Consequently, the Court held that the claimants were entitled to compensation at Rs.2,000 per R. The appeals were allowed, the earlier award was modified, and the compensation was adjusted accordingly.
Issues considered
- Whether the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate.
- Whether the Reference Court should have used the higher market value from Exhibit‑14 rather than the average of two sale instances.
- Whether the pre‑notification sale instances are relevant for determining market value under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act — s. 4
Subjects
- Land Acquisition
- Compensation
- Market Value
- Section 4
- Appeal
- Civil Procedure
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:27167
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…