Bombay High Court

THE STATE OF MAH and ORSversusMURLIDHAR RAMA GORE and ORS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The reference court’s award of Rs.500 per ropani for land and Rs.250 per ropani for potkharab land is just and reasonable, and no compensation is payable for fruit‑bearing trees.

Summary

The State of Maharashtra appealed a judgment of the VI Adhoc Additional District Judge, Beed, which had enhanced compensation for land acquired in 1989 for a percolation tank. The claimants had originally received meager compensation of Rs.72 per ropani for land and Rs.2 for potkharab land and protested, seeking a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, arguing that fruit‑bearing trees on the land warranted additional compensation. The reference court, after considering prior sale instances, increased the rate to Rs.500 per ropani for land and Rs.250 per ropani for potkharab land but did not award any amount for the trees. The High Court examined whether the enhanced award was excessive and whether compensation for the trees was due, concluding that the reference court’s award was just and reasonable and that no compensation for the trees was payable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the civil application, if any, was also disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the reference court’s enhanced compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is excessive or unjustified.
Whether compensation is payable for fruit‑bearing trees on the acquired land.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act — s. 18, 4

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation
fruit bearing trees
Section 18 reference
percolation tank
Maharashtra
appeal

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:46227

                                                                            FA 477/2009
                                                 1

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                904 FIRST APPEAL NO. 477 OF 2009

                               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
                                              VERSUS
                                 MURLIDHAR RAMA GORE AND ORS
                                                 ...
                               Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A.D. Wange
                                                 ...

                                 CORAM        : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                 Dated        : September 30, 2026

            PER COURT :-

            1.    As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1989, with the consent of

            learned AGP taken up for final hearing.

            2.    By this appeal, the appellant/State assails the judgment and award

            dated 4.10.2004 passed by the learned VI Adhoc Additional District Judge,

            Beed in LAR No. 291/1995, whereby the reference court has enhanced the

            compensation in favour of the claimants.

            3.    The land of the claimants from S.No. 255/9/2 to the extent of 0.03

            R., S.No. 273/3 to the extent of 0.04 R., S. No. 273/12 to the extent of 0.26

            R., S.No. 273/8 to the extent of 0.31 R. and S.No. 273/21 to the extent of

            0.02 R. situated at village Nagtala, Tal. Ashti was acquired for the purpose

            of percolation tank at village Nagtala along with fruit bearing trees.

            Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be

            published on    8.2.1990. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has declared

            the award and has granted compensation at the rate of Rs.72/- per R. for

            acquired land and Rs.2/- for Potkharab land which was very meager

            compensation. The claimants received the compensation under protest and

            sought reference under section 18 of the Act and contended that in the
                                                                          FA 477/2009
                                            2

acquired land there were fruit bearing trees.

4.      The claimants relied upon the sale instance dated 11.5.1989 by which

25 R. land was sold for Rs. 25000/-. By the another sale instance, 81 R.

land was sold for Rs.32000/-. The learned reference court after considering

the sale instances determined the compensation at the rate of RS.500/- per

R. for acquired lands and Rs.250/- per R. for Potkharab lands. After going

through the judgment and award passed by the reference court, this court

is of the view that the reference court has granted just and reasonable

compensation and no exorbitant or excessive compensation is granted by

the    reference   court.   The   learned       reference   court   has   not   granted

compensation for fruit bearing trees. In view of the above, no case is made

out for interference. The appeal is dismissed. Pending civil application, if

any, also stands disposed of.



                                                 ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )

ssc/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…