RAMBHAU DATTATRAYA KULKARNI DIED THROUGH LRS REKHA AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ANR

2026:BHC-AUG:40819
              Dilwale                                      1                  910-FA-456-12.odt




                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                   910 FIRST APPEAL NO. 456 OF 2012

                  Rambhau Dattatraya Kulkarni Died Through Lrs Rekha & Ors.
                                                VERSUS
                                 The State Of Maharashtra & Anr
                                                   ...
             Advocate for Appellants : Mr. P. P. More h/f Mr. R. J. Nirmal
             AGP for Respondent-State: Mr. S. S. Dande
             Advocate for Respondent No.2: Mr. P. R. Tandale
                                                   ...
                                  CORAM           : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                      DATE          : 01.09.2026

             PER COURT :
             1.         As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 2000, the appeal is

             heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the

             respective parties.

             2.         By this appeal, the appellants-original claimants are challenging

             the judgment and award dated 09.11.2011 passed by the learned 2 nd

             Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, whereby the reference came to

             be dismissed.

             3.         The land bearing Gut No. 141, admeasuring 90 R, was acquired for

             the Percolation Tank at Pimpalgaon (Amba). The notification under

             Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 11 th June 1992.

             The Special Land Acquisition Officer, upon passing the award, granted

             compensation at the rate of ₹6,600/- per acre. The claimants claimed

             compensation @ Rs.40,000/- per acre. Being dissatisfied with the amount
 Dilwale                                       2                  910-FA-456-12.odt


of compensation awarded, the claimants filed an application before the

Collector for making a reference to the Civil Court for determination of

the proper market value of the acquired land. But the learned Reference

Court dismissed the Reference.

4.         Mr. P. P. More, learned counsel holding for Mr. R. J. Nirmal, the

learned counsel for the claimants submits that before the learned

Reference Court, the claimants relied upon the sale instance at Exhibit 18

pertaining to village Bhosa. As per the said sale instance, land

admeasuring 79 R, along with 2 R of land having a one-fourth share in a

well, was sold for a consideration of ₹56,000/-. The learned Reference

Court, however, erroneously discarded the said sale instance by observing

that it related only to 2 R of land and that the sale transaction was in

respect of land situated in a different village and no map was filed by the

claimants.

5.         Per contra, Mr. Tandale, learned counsel for the acquiring body and

Mr. Dande, learned AGP for the State opposed the prayer for interference

with the impugned award. They submit that, as the claimants failed to

file sale instance from village Pimpalgaon (Amba), learned Reference

Court has rightly rejected the reference. Therefore, they pray to dismiss

the appeal filed by the claimants.

6.         Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel and

upon perusal of the record and proceedings with their assistance, it

reveals that the claimants had produced sale instance at Exhibit 18,
 Dilwale                                          3                     910-FA-456-12.odt


pertaining to village Bhosa, whereby land adm. 81R including 2R land

irrigated by well was sold for Rs.56,000/-. It appears that the distance

between the land covered by the sale instance and the acquired land is

hardly one kilometre. The two villages are adjacent to each other. Though

the claimants had not produced any documentary evidence such as

village map or Gut map on record in support of the said assertion, the

same was not controverted by the acquiring body. In the circumstances,

the learned Reference Court was not justified in discarding the sale

instance merely on the ground that the transaction pertained to land

situated in a different village.

7.         As regards the finding recorded by the learned Reference Court

that the sale instance at Exhibit 18 related only to 2 R of land, the said

finding is not borne out by the record. On perusal of the sale deed, it

appears that, under the said transaction, 79 R of land along with 2 R of

land having a one-fourth share in the well was sold for a consideration of

₹56,000/-. Thus, the transaction was not confined merely to 2 R of land,

as observed by the learned Reference Court.

8.         The finding recorded by the learned Reference Court in that regard

is, therefore, perverse and contrary to the documentary evidence on

record. The sale instance at Exhibit 18 relates to 81 R of land and,

considering the proximity of the land covered by the sale instance to the

acquired       land,   the   said   transaction       deserves   consideration      for

determining the market value of the acquired land.
 Dilwale                                          4                910-FA-456-12.odt


9.         The consideration reflected in the sale instance is ₹56,000/-. After

excluding the appropriate value attributable to the 2 R portion having a

one-fourth share in the well, the value attributable to the remaining

agricultural land would have to be worked out. The acquired land,

however, is situated at village Pimplegaon (Amba), whereas the sale

instance pertains to village Bhosa. Some deduction, therefore, would be

required on account of the difference in location and other relevant

factors.

10.        As the land covered under sale instance at Exhibit 18 contained 2R

land irrigated by well, the market value of the said 2R irrigated land must

be deducted i.e. Rs.2765/- from total consideration of the sale instance

i.e. Rs.56,000/-, whereby the value would come to Rs.53,235/- for 79R.

Upon appropriate calculation, the value of 1R would work out to

Rs.674/- per R i.e. Rs.26,954/- per acre.

11.        Having regard to the nature of the acquired land and the material

placed on record, a deduction of 30% would, in the facts and

circumstances of the present case, be appropriate, whereby market value

would come to Rs.18,868/- per acre, rounded up to Rs.19,000/- per acre.

Hence, I pass following order:

                                      ORDER

      I.        First Appeal is partly allowed.

      II.       The claimants are entitled to compensation @ Rs.19,000/-

                per acre and to that extent impugned award stands
Dilwale                                      5                     910-FA-456-12.odt


            modified.

     III.   The claimants are entitled to all statutory benefits

            including interest as per Full Bench judgment of this Court

            in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari, 2016 (3)

            Mh.L.J. 457.

     IV.    Rest of the impugned award stands confirmed.

     V.     The impugned judgment and award is modified

            accordingly.

     VI.    Deficit Court fee be paid.

     VII.   Pending Civil Applications, if any, are disposed of.




                                          [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                    JUDGE