Bombay High Court

SUDAM KALU PATILversusTHE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NANDURBAR AND ANR

Disposal: PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED

Holding

The High Court partially allowed the appeals, modifying the compensation to Rs 1,30,000 per hectare for jirayat land and Rs 1,95,000 per hectare for seasonally irrigated land.

Summary

The appellants challenged the compensation awarded for lands acquired for a minor irrigation project in Nandurbar, arguing that the reference court failed to consider relevant recent sale instances and the income potential of the land. The High Court examined the sale evidence, noting that the reference court had discarded certain sales because the parcels were adjacent to a highway. Applying a 30% deduction for locational advantage, the Court arrived at a market value of approximately Rs 1,30,000 per hectare for jirayat land and Rs 1,95,000 per hectare for seasonally irrigated land. It held that these enhanced rates were appropriate and modified the earlier awards accordingly. The judgment also affirmed entitlement to statutory benefits, including interest as per State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari.

Issues considered

Whether the compensation awarded by the reference court should be enhanced based on recent sale instances.
Whether sale instances of land adjacent to a highway can be considered for valuation.
What is the appropriate compensation rate for jirayat and seasonally irrigated land in the present case.
Whether the appellants are entitled to statutory benefits and interest on the enhanced compensation.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4, 6, 9

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation
jirayat land
seasonally irrigated land
sale price valuation
interest
statutory benefits

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:42122
1 of 8 908-FA.453.2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

908 FIRST APPEAL NO. 453 OF 2008

KAMLABEN SHRIPAT PATEL
VERSUS
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NANDURBAR AND ANR
...
Mr. Umesh Mitkari h/f. Mr. M. S. Kulkarni, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for Respondent-State.
...

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 455 OF 2008

GIRDHAR VEDU PATIL
VERSUS
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANR
…
Mr. Umesh Mitkari h/f. Mr. M. S. Kulkarni, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for Respondent-State.

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 454 OF 2008

RAMU MADAN PATIL
VERSUS
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NANDURBAR AND ANR
…
Mr. Umesh Mitkari h/f. Mr. M. S. Kulkarni, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for Respondent-State.

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 456 OF 2008

SUDAM KALU PATIL
VERSUS
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NANDURBAR AND ANR
…
Mr. Umesh Mitkari h/f. Mr. M. S. Kulkarni, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for Respondent-State.
…
AND
2 of 8 908-FA.453.2008

NOT ON BOARD, TAKEN ON BOARD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 499 OF 2008

GIRIDHAR SHANKAR PATEL
VERSUS
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NANDURBAR AND ANR
…
Mr. Umesh Mitkari h/f. Mr. M. S. Kulkarni, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for Respondent-State.
…
AND
NOT ON BOARD, TAKEN ON BOARD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 485 OF 2008

MADHU LAXMAN CHAUDHARI
VERSUS
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NANDURBAR AND ANR
…
Mr. Umesh Mitkari h/f. Mr. M. S. Kulkarni, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for Respondent-State.
…
AND
NOT ON BOARD, TAKEN ON BOARD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4241 OF 2008

GIRDHAR NATHU MALI
VERSUS
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NANDURBAR AND ANR
…
Mr. Umesh Mitkari h/f. Mr. M. S. Kulkarni, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for Respondent-State.
…

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2026

P.C.:-

1. Since the acquisition proceedings pertain to the year 2000,

the appeals are heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates

for the respective parties.
3 of 8 908-FA.453.2008

2. By these appeals, the Appellants/Claimants are aggrieved by

the judgments and awards dated 27.02.2006 passed by the learned

Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nandurbar, in LAR Nos.02/2003,

04/2003, 05/2003, 07/2003, 08/2003, 10/2003 and 18/2003,

whereby the learned Reference Court partly allowed the references, but

did not grant compensation at the rate claimed by the

Appellants/Claimants.

3. Brief facts of the present cases are as under:-

(i) The lands belonging to the Appellants/Claimants were acquired

for the Minor Irrigation Project at village Chaupala, Taluka and

District Nandurbar.

(ii) The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 (for short, “the Act”) was published on 21.09.2000. The

Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on

20.09.2001, and the Notification under Section 9 of the Act was

published on 10.12.2001.

(iii) The Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “the LAO”) passed the

award on 19.05.2002. The particulars of the lands acquired from

the respective Gat numbers, the compensation awarded by the

LAO and the compensation awarded by the learned Reference

Court are as follows:-
4 of 8 908-FA.453.2008

Sr. F.A. No. LAR No. Name of Gat Area Rates by Rates by Land as
No. Claimant No. SLAO Ref. per Ref.
per H Court Court
per H.
1 453/2008 05/2003 Kamlaben 137 40 R 88091 1,02,243 Jirayat
Patel
2 454/2008 08/2003 Ramu Patil 140 81 R + 88091 1,53,365 Seasonally
15 R + irrigated
Potkhara 51,122
b for
potkhara
b
3 499/2008 18/2003 Girdhar 135 20 R 1,32,135 1,53,365 Seasonally
Shankar irrigated
Patel
4 456/2008 04/2003 Sudam Patil 136 76 R 1,32,135 1,53,365 Seasonally
irrigated
5 485/2008 10/2003 Madhu 142/ 1 H 11 R 88091 1,02,243 Jirayat
Chaudhari 1
6 455/2008 07/2003 Girdhar 139 30 R 88091 1,02,243 Jirayat
Vedu Patil
7 4241/2008 02/2003 Girdhar 108 32 R 88091 1,02,243 Jirayat
Nathu Mali

(iv) Being dissatisfied with the compensation granted by the learned

Reference Court, the Claimants have filed present first appeals

seeking higher compensation.

4. Mr. Umesh Mitkari, learned Advocate holding for Mr. M. S.

Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the Appellants, submits that the learned

Reference Court ought to have considered the sale instances at

Exhibits-20, 21 and 22 relied upon by the Claimants and ought to have

awarded compensation at a higher rate. While determining the

compensation, the LAO did not take into consideration the sale

instances of lands situated at village Chaupala which had taken place

during the period of three years preceding the Notification under
5 of 8 908-FA.453.2008

Section 4 of the Act. The LAO also did not take into consideration the

income derived by the Claimants from the acquired lands. It was

further contended that the acquired lands had non-agricultural

potential, as they were situated adjacent to Nandurbar town.

Therefore, he prays to enhance the compensation by allowing the

appeals.

5. Mr. B. A. Shinde, learned AGP for the Respondent-State,

supports the judgment and award passed by the learned Reference

Court. He submits that the Appellants have failed to establish sufficient

ground for enhancement and the determination of compensation made

by the learned Reference Court is based upon material available on

record. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the first appeals.

6. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties

and with their assistance, have gone through the record and

proceedings. The Claimants, upon receipt of the award passed by the

LAO, were granted compensation at the rate of Rs.88,091/- per Hectare

for Jirayat land. In First Appeal Nos.499 of 2008, 454 of 2008 and 456

of 2008, the LAO had awarded compensation at the rate of

Rs.1,32,135/- per Hectare for seasonally irrigated land. In the

remaining appeals, the acquired lands have been treated as jirayat

lands.

7. The Claimants relied upon the sale instances at Exhibits-20,
6 of 8 908-FA.453.2008

21 and 22. However, the learned Reference Court discarded those sale

instances on the ground that the lands covered by the said sale

instances were situated adjacent to the Nandurbar-Dhule Highway. The

learned Reference Court, instead, relied upon the sale instance in SLAO

award at Sr. Nos.9, 63 and 68 dated 21.11.1995, 20.02.1999 and

14.07.1999 respectively. By the sale instance at Sr. No.68 dated

14.07.1999, land admeasuring 1 Hectare 56 R from Gat No.440/2 was

sold @ of Rs.92,948/- per Hectare. The learned Reference Court

applied 10% escalation as the Notification under Section 4 of the Act

was published subsequent thereto on 21.09.2000, thereby arriving at a

market value of Rs.1,02,243/- per Hectare.

8. The Claimants have relied upon the sale instances at

Exhibits-20 and 21. Both the sale instances are of the same date i.e.

15.07.1999 and pertain to the same Gat No.57. As per the sale instance

at Exhibit-21, an area admeasuring 1 Hectare 28 R was sold for a

consideration of Rs.2,37,500/-. Thus, the rate works out to

approximately Rs.1,85,546/- per Hectare for jirayat land.

9. The learned Reference Court discarded the said sale instance

at Exhibit-21 principally on the ground that the land covered by the

sale instance was situated adjacent to the Highway. However, the fact

remains that the sale instance is from the same village. Merely because

the land covered by the sale instance is situated adjacent to the
7 of 8 908-FA.453.2008

Highway, the sale instance cannot be discarded in its entirety,

particularly when it pertains to a substantial area of 1 Hectare 28 R

and is from the same village.

10. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, in my

view, deduction of 30% would adequately take care of the locational

advantage enjoyed by the land covered by the sale instance. After

applying 30% deduction to the rate of approximately Rs.1,85,546/- per

Hectare, the rate works out to approximately Rs.1,29,882/- per

Hectare. The same can reasonably be rounded off to Rs.1,30,000/- per

hectare for Jirayat land and proportionately for seasonally irrigated

land, in accordance with the classification made by the learned

Reference Court.

11. Therefore, in my view, the Claimants are entitled to

compensation @ of Rs.1,30,000/- per Hectare for the acquired jirayat

land and @ of Rs.1,95,000/- for seasonally irrigated land, the rates

would be as per the nature/classification of the land made by the

learned Reference Court. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

(i) The present appeals are partly allowed.

(ii) The judgments and awards dated 27.02.2006 passed by

the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nandurbar, in

LAR Nos.02/2003, 04/2003, 05/2003, 07/2003,
8 of 8 908-FA.453.2008

08/2003, 10/2003 and 18/2003 are modified to the

extent that the respective Claimants shall be entitled to

receive compensation @ of Rs.1,30,000/- per Hectare

for the jirayat lands and @ of Rs.1,95,000/- for

seasonally irrigated lands as per the

nature/classification of lands made by the learned

Reference Court.

(iii) The Claimant shall be entitled to all statutory benefits

including interest in accordance with the law laid down

by the Full Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra

Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari, reported in 2016(3) Mh.L.J.

457.

(iv) The rest of the judgment and award remains unaltered.

(v) The modified award be drawn accordingly.

(vi) The Claimants shall pay deficit Court fee, if any, on the

enhanced amount of compensation.

(vii) Pending civil applications, if any, are also disposed of.

(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

Tauseef

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…