BHIMRAO YADAV BHALERAO SONAWANE AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:38624
                  Dilwale                                 1                  24-fa-459-08.odt




                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                   24 FIRST APPEAL NO. 459 OF 2008

                            Bhimrao Yadav Bhalerao Sonawane & Ors
                                              VERSUS
                                    The State Of Maharashtra
                                                  ...
             Advocate for Appellants : Mr. B. K. Pawar h/f Mr. A. B. Kale
             AGP for Respondent-State: Mr. D. R. Korde
                                                  ...

                                     CORAM        : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                     DATE         : 18.08.2026

             PER COURT :
             1.        As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1975, the appeal is

             taken up for the final hearing with the consent of the learned counsel

             appearing for the respective parties.

             2.        The appellants/original claimants have preferred the present

             appeal, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 16.12.2005

             passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon in LAR

             No.68/1986, whereby the learned Reference Court enhanced the

             compensation. However, the compensation was not enhanced to the

             extent claimed by the claimants.

             3.        The land of the appellants adm. 30R from Block No.356/3 was

             acquired for the purpose of extension of Gaothan at village Mamurabad,

             Taluka and District Jalgaon. The notification under Section 4 of the Land

             Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) was published on 14.08.1975.
     Dilwale                                2                 24-fa-459-08.odt


The declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 16.10.1975

and the possession was taken on 13.12.1995. The award under Section

11 was declared on 12.06.1984 and the Special Land Acquisition Officer

awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.15,032/- per hectare, i.e.

approximately Rs.150/- per R. The learned Reference Court enhanced the

compensation @ Rs.21,666/- per H.

4.        Mr. A. B. Kale, learned counsel appearing for the appellants,

submits that the acquired land had substantial non-agricultural and

residential potential. He further submits that the acquired land was

situated adjacent to the road and the adjoining lands had already been

converted to non-agricultural use. He further submits that, since the

acquisition itself was for the purpose of extension of Gaothan, the

potentiality of the acquired land ought to have been properly considered.

He further submits that sale instance at Exhibit 106 though related to a

smaller plot and a developed property, the same could not have been

discarded outright. He further submits that appropriate deduction could

have been made towards development and other relevant factor and

thereafter the same could have been taken into consideration for

determining the market value of the acquired land. He, therefore, prays

for allowing the appeal.

5.        Per contra, Mr. D. R. Korde, learned AGP appearing for the

respondent-State, supports the judgment and award passed by the

learned Reference Court. He submits that the sale instance at Exhibit 106
     Dilwale                                3                  24-fa-459-08.odt


relied upon by the appellants was not comparable with the acquired land.

He further submits that the plot covered by the said sale instance was

situated in a developed area and had already acquired non-agricultural

potential, whereas acquired land was used for the cultivation at the time

of taking possession. He further submits that the land covered by sale

instance at Exhibit 106 and acquired land has distinct nature, extent and

location. Therefore, the two lands cannot be treated with each other as

comparable. He therefore prays for dismissal of the appeal.

6.        Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned

counsel for the respective parties and upon perusal of the evidence on

record and the judgment and award passed by the learned Reference

Court, it reveals that there is no dispute that the land was acquired for

the purpose of extension of Gaothan. The claimants have specifically

contended that the acquired land possessed non-agricultural and

residential potential and that the adjacent lands had been converted to

non-agricultural use. However, the claimants failed to produce any

documentary evidence on record to suggest that prior to the notification

under Section 4 of the Act, the lands adjacent to the acquired land either

were converted to non agricultural land or structure like, house, shops or

any other commercial structures were in existence therein. Therefore, the

bare assertions of the claimants that the acquired land has the

potentiality to be converted into non agricultural land cannot be relied

upon.
     Dilwale                                 4                  24-fa-459-08.odt


7.        The claimants further relied upon sale instances at Exhibit 106

dated 19.05.1974 and Exhibit 102 dated 04.06.1974. So far as the sale

instance at Exhibit 106 is concerned, it relates to a smaller plot situated

in developed area within the locality of the Grampanchayat of

Mamurabad, whereas the acquired land is an agricultural land situated

beyond residential zone at Mamurabad, therefore, the said transaction

cannot be adopted mechanically for determining the market value of the

acquired land. The plot covered by sale instance at Exhibit 106 used for

residential purpose within the limits of Grampanchayat Mamurabad and

thus, the same cannot be said to be the land having similar advantages,

potentiality and quality as that of the acquired agricultural land which

was continuously used for the agricultural purpose therefore such open

plot cannot be considered as comparable for awarding similar market

value for the acquired land, and therefore, the learned Reference Court

has rightly declined to rely upon the said sale instance.

8.        The learned Reference Court has relied upon the sale instance at

Exhibit 102 dated 04.06.1974, wherein agricultural land adm. 90 R was

sold for Rs.19,500/- on 04.06.1974 from the same village of the acquired

land and the transaction is prior to the notification under Section 4 i.e.

14.08.1975, therefore, the same is quite proximate in time, location and

similar in advantages to the acquired land. Therefore, learned Reference

Court has rightly relied upon the said sale instance to determine the

appropriate market value of the acquired land. Therefore, I do not find
  Dilwale                                     5                      24-fa-459-08.odt


any reason to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the

learned Reference Court. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merits and no

case is made out for the enhancement. Hence, the following order is

passed:

                                   ORDER

     I)     The First Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

     II)    Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.




                                          [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                    JUDGE