Bombay High Court

BALBHIM HANMANT GOREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED

Holding

The court held that the nearby sale is a valid comparable, fixing compensation at Rs 1,36,363 per acre and denying interest, while allowing other statutory benefits.

Summary

The State of Maharashtra acquired lands in Kopra village for a storage tank, initially awarding compensation of Rs 14,000 per acre under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The reference court enhanced the award to Rs 40,000 per acre but the claimants argued that a nearby sale of 22 R of land for Rs 75,000, occurring 300 ft from the acquired parcel and before the Section 4 notification, warranted a much higher market value. The claimants sought a compensation rate of Rs 1,50,000 per acre, while the acquiring authority contended the sale was irrelevant and that interest should be payable from the notification date. The High Court held that the sale was a valid comparable, determining a compensation rate of Rs 1,36,363 per acre, and rejected the claim for interest as contrary to the precedent set in State of Maharashtra v. Kailas Shiva Rangari. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed, the award was modified, and only the statutory benefits (excluding interest) were granted.

Issues considered

Whether the sale of a nearby parcel of land prior to the Section 4 notification is a valid comparable for determining market value under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation at a rate higher than Rs 40,000 per acre based on the comparable sale.
Whether interest and other statutory benefits should be awarded from the date of notification.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation
market value
comparable sale
interest
statutory benefits
Land Acquisition Act

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:37371

Fa 4434/17 & Anr.
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

29 FIRST APPEAL NO. 4434 OF 2017
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8978 OF 2026

BALBHIM HANMANT GORE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. V.D. Gunale
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.N. Morampalle
Advocate for Respondent 2 : Mr. Anand Chaware
...

30 FIRST APPEAL NO. 4435 OF 2017

DIGAMBAR HANMANT GORE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. V.D. Gunale
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Dande
Advocate for Respondent 2 : Mr. Anand Chaware
...

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
Dated : August 17, 2026

PER COURT :-

1. Civil Application No. 8978/2026 is filed for bringing the legal heirs of

deceased appellant in FA No. 4434/2017 on record by condoning the delay

of 505 days caused in filing the application. For the averments made in the

application, the application is allowed. Delay is condoned. Legal heirs of

deceased appellant be brought on record. Amendment be carried out

forthwith.

2. Admit.

3. As the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1996, heard

finally with the consent of learned counsel for respective parties.
Fa 4434/17 & Anr.
2

4. By these appeals, the appellants/original claimants assail the

judgment and award dated 24.9.2007 passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge,

Senior Division, Ahmedpur in LAR Nos. 167/2002 and 170/2002.

5. The lands of the claimants admeasuring 2 H. 95 R. from LAR No.

167/2002 and 1 H. 70 R. in LAR No. 170/2002 were acquired for

construction of Kopra Storage Tank at village Kopra. Notification under

section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 4.4.1996. The

Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) has declared the award on

11.11.1998 and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.14,000/- per Acre.

The claimants accepted the said amount under protest and being aggrieved

by the same, filed application before the Collector for proper determination

of the market value of acquired lands. The reference court after going

through the evidence led by the parties, enhanced the compensation at the

rate of Rs.40,000/- per Acre. Being aggrieved by the same, the present first

appeals are filed by the original claimants for further enhancement of

compensation.

6. Mr. V.D. Gunale, learned counsel for original claimants submits that

before the reference court, the claimants relied upon E-statements Exhs. 14

and 15, 7/12 extracts Exh. 16 to 32, sale instance Exh. 34 from village

Kopra by which 22 R. land from Gat No. 66/2 was sold for Rs.75,000/-. He

submits that the distance between the acquired lands and the land referred

in sale instance, Exh. 34 is only 300 ft. and the said sale deed is executed

prior to section 4 notification and duly proved. He therefore submits that

the claimants are entitled to receive the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per Acre. The

learned counsel submits that the reference court without considering the

sale instance, Exh. 34, and without recording any finding as to why the said
Fa 4434/17 & Anr.
3

sale instance is not acceptable, has granted the compensation at the rate of

Rs.1000/- per R. i.e. Rs.40,000/- per Acre for the acquired lands as the said

sale instance is for the small piece of land. He therefore prays that the

impugned judgment and award of the reference court needs to be modified.

7. Per contra, Mr. Anand Chawre, learned counsel for acquiring body

supports the award passed by the reference court. He submits that the

learned reference court has rightly discarded the sale instance and even the

claimants have not made out case before the reference court for granting

enhancement. He further submits that as regards interest and statutory

benefits are concerned, the reference court has wrongly granted the same

from the date of notification 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. Therefore, he submits that the appeals filed

by the original claimants be dismissed.

8. 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. It appears that the reference court has

referred the sale instance, Exh. 34 and recorded finding that the said sale

instance is for small piece of land, but there are no finding recorded that

whether the said sale instance is relied upon or discarded by the reference

court and without considering the same, has determined the market value

of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.40,000/- per Acre. After going

through the sale instance, it appears that the said sale instance is from the

same village in respect of the land which was 300 ft. away from the

acquired land. The claimants have lead the evidence and proved the same.

Though there was no map produced to show that the distance between the
Fa 4434/17 & Anr.
4

acquired lands and the land referred in sale instance, Exh. 34 is 300 ft., but

the fact remains that the contention raised in respect of the distance

between the acquired lands and the land referred in the sale instance is only

300 ft., was not controverted by the acquiring body before the reference

court, therefore, this court has no option than to accept the same as

comparable sale instance by which 22 R. land from Gat No. 66/2 from the

same village was sold for Rs.75,000/- and the said sale instance was prior

to section 4 notification. Hence, I hold that on the basis of sale instance,

Exh. 34, market value of the acquired land needs to be determined. In view

of the sale instance, Exh. 34, the claimants are entitled to receive rate of

Rs.1,36,363/- per Acre.

9. As regards interest and statutory benefits are concerned, the

reference court has granted the same from the date of notification 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. Hence,

I pass the following order.

ORDER

(I) The appeals are partly allowed.

(II) The appellants/claimants are entitled to receive compensation at the

rate of Rs.1,36,363/- per Acre for their acquired lands.

(III) The appellants/claimants are not entitled to receive interest and other

statutory benefits for the delayed period of 2098 days caused in filing the

present appeals.

(IV) The appellants/claimants shall be entitled to all consequential

statutory benefits under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on

the enhanced compensation in view of the judgment of Full Bench of this
Fa 4434/17 & Anr.
5

Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari (supra).

(V) The impugned judgment and award of the reference court is modified

accordingly.

(VI) Pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of.

( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )

ssc/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…