Bombay High Court
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORSversusCHANDRAKANT ZUMBAR YADAV AND ANR
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The Reference Court’s valuation of Rs 2,000 per R is reasonable and upheld, but the interest direction is modified to conform with State of Maharashtra v. Kailas Shiva Rangari.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed a common Judgment and Award that had enhanced compensation for land acquired for the Lasona Percolation Tank. The acquisition was notified in 1995, but possession was taken in 1992 and the award was made in 1998. Claimants had accepted compensation under protest and sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Reference Court increased the market value to Rs 2,000 per R, relying on a 1992 sale (Exhibit 23) after adjusting for a share in a well and applying a 10% per‑annum escalation for three years. The State argued that the sale was not comparable and the valuation excessive, while the claimants contended the valuation was proper. The High Court held that the Reference Court’s methodology was reasonable and the Rs 2,000 per R valuation was justified, but modified the award to correct the interest calculation in line with State of Maharashtra v. Kailas Shiva Rangari. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed, limiting the modification to the interest component.
Issues considered
- Whether the Reference Court was justified in determining the market value of the acquired land at Rs 2,000 per R based on the 1992 sale transaction.
- Whether the direction to pay interest from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act is consistent with prevailing law.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 11, 18, 28, 34, 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- market value determination
- Section 18 reference
- interest calculation
- valuation methodology
- percolation tank
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:41861
11-FA-5078-2017.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
11 FIRST APPEAL NO. 5078 OF 2017
The State of Maharashtra And Others
VERSUS
Mangalbai Fulchand Yadav
……
12 FIRST APPEAL NO. 5079 OF 2017
The State of Maharashtra And Others
VERSUS
Chandrakant Zumbar Yadav And Another
……
Mr. S.N. Morampalle, AGP for Appellant-State in FA/5078/2017
Mr. S.S. Dande, AGP for Appellant-State in FA/5079/2017
Ms. Laxmi R. Thakur, Advocate h/f Mr. L.C. Patil, Advocate for Respondents-
Claimants in both FAs
……
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 04 SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard learned AGPs appearing for the appellant-State and learned
counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants.
2. These Appeals take exception to the common Judgment and Award
dated 11.03.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Osmanabad, in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.85 of 2007 and 440 of 2008,
whereby the learned Reference Court partly allowed the References under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) and
enhanced the compensation payable to the respective claimants along with
the statutory benefits.
11-FA-5078-2017.odt
2
3. The lands belonging to the respective claimants, situated at village
Lasona, Taluka and District Osmanabad, came to be acquired for the
Percolation Tank, Lasona. The particulars of the acquired lands are as under:
Sr. No. LAR No. Survey/Gat No. Area Acquired
1. 85 of 2007 177 03 H 70 R
2. 440 of 2008 153 & 174 02 H 87 R
3. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on
17.04.1995. The possession of the acquired lands was taken on 29.04.1992,
i.e. prior to publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The
Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “the SLAO”) passed the Award
under Section 11 of the Act on 30.07.1998 and determined the market value
of the acquired lands at the rates of Rs.130/-, Rs.145/- and Rs.170/- per R.
The claimants, being dissatisfied with the market value determined by the
SLAO, accepted the compensation under protest and sought references
under Section 18 of the Act. Accordingly, the references came to be made to
the learned Reference Court.
4. Before the learned Reference Court, the claimants relied upon the
sale instances at Exhibits 23 and 24. The sale instance at Exhibit 23 is dated
09.09.1992, whereas the sale instance at Exhibit 24 is dated 31.03.1993.
The learned Reference Court placed reliance upon the sale instance at
Exhibit 23 and enhanced the market value of the acquired lands to
Rs.2,000/- per R, together with the statutory benefits. Hence, the present
11-FA-5078-2017.odt
3
Appeals at the instance of the State.
5. Learned AGPs appearing for the appellant-State submit that the
learned Reference Court was not justified in enhancing the market value to
Rs.2,000/- per R. According to them, the sale instance relied upon by the
claimants was not a comparable transaction and the enhancement granted
by the learned Reference Court is excessive and without sufficient
evidentiary basis. It is submitted that the acquired lands and the land
covered by Exhibit 23 were not shown to be comparable with regard to their
situation, nature and potentiality. The learned AGPs, therefore, submit that
the impugned Judgment and Award deserves to be interfered with.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants
supports the impugned Judgment and Award. She submits that the sale
instance at Exhibit 23 is a genuine transaction executed on 09.09.1992, i.e.
nearly three years prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act, and
relates to land situated in the vicinity. She submits that the learned
Reference Court has not mechanically relied upon the sale consideration,
but has properly worked out the value attributable to the land after
excluding the amount referable to the share in the well and thereafter
granted appropriate escalation for the intervening period. According to her,
the ultimate determination of Rs.2,000/- per R is just, reasonable and
supported by the evidence on record. He, therefore, submits that no
interference is warranted.
11-FA-5078-2017.odt
4
7. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the respective parties and have carefully perused the impugned
Judgment and Award as well as the material available on record.
8. The principal question that falls for consideration is whether the
learned Reference Court was justified in determining the market value of the
acquired lands at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per R on the basis of the sale
instance at Exhibit 23.
9. The sale instance at Exhibit 23 is dated 09.09.1992. Thus, the
transaction is of a date about three years prior to the publication of the
notification under Section 4 of the Act on 17.04.1995. The transaction
covers an area of 99 R. The sale consideration mentioned therein is
Rs.1,50,000/-. The said consideration includes not only the price of the land
but also the price attributable to 1/3rd share in the well.
10. The learned Reference Court considered the fact that the claimants
had not led any specific evidence enabling an exact bifurcation of the
consideration between the land and the 1/3rd share in the well. In the
circumstances, as a matter of prudence, the learned Reference Court
assessed the price attributable to the well at Rs.30,000/- and, having regard
to the fact that the transaction concerned 1/3rd share therein, deducted
Rs.10,000/- from the total sale consideration. Thus, the consideration
attributable to the land was taken at Rs.1,40,000/-. On dividing the amount
11-FA-5078-2017.odt
5
of Rs.1,40,000/- by the area of 99 R, the market value works out to
approximately Rs.1,414/- per R in the year 1992.
11. The learned Reference Court thereafter granted escalation for the
period of three years between the date of the sale transaction and the date
of the notification. By applying an increase of 10% per annum, i.e. 30% for
the intervening period, an amount of approximately Rs.424/- per R was
added to the rate of Rs.1,414/- per R. Consequently, the rate worked out to
approximately Rs.1,838/- per R in the year 1995.
12. Having regard to the aforesaid calculation, the learned Reference
Court ultimately determined the market value of the acquired lands at
Rs.2,000/- per R. Thus, the determination made by the learned Reference
Court is not without basis. On the contrary, the rate of Rs.2,000/- per R is
reasonably relatable to the rate emerging from the comparable sale
transaction after making appropriate adjustment for the amount attributable
to the well and the intervening escalation.
13. It is well settled that while determining the market value of acquired
land, the Court is required to take into consideration the best available
evidence, particularly genuine and comparable sale instances proximate in
point of time to the relevant date. The transaction at Exhibit 23 is of a date
prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Act and provides a concrete
basis for determination of the market value. The appellant-State has not
11-FA-5078-2017.odt
6
been able to demonstrate that the said transaction is sham, artificial or
otherwise unreliable. Nor has the appellant-State brought on record any
better or more comparable sale instance so as to displace the evidence relied
upon by the learned Reference Court.
14. Upon an independent re-appreciation of the evidence, I find that the
approach adopted by the learned Reference Court is reasonable and
supported by the material on record. The determination of market value at
Rs.2,000/- per R cannot be said to be perverse, arbitrary or excessive so as
to warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction. The compensation so
determined appears to be just and reasonable.
15. However, the grievance of the appellant-State regarding the grant of
interest deserves consideration. The learned Reference Court has directed
payment of interest from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act.
Such direction is not in consonance with the law laid down by the Full
Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016
(3) Mh.L.J. 457. Therefore, to that limited extent, the impugned Judgment
and Award requires modification.
16. In view of the above discussion, the Appeals deserve to be partly
allowed only to the extent of modification in respect of interest. The
determination of market value at Rs.2,000/- per R and the consequential
statutory benefits, subject to the modification regarding the period and
11-FA-5078-2017.odt
7
computation of interest, do not call for interference. Hence, the following
order:
ORDER
(i) The First Appeals are partly allowed.
(ii) The common Judgment and Award dated 11.03.2013 passed by the
learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, in Land Acquisition
Reference Nos.85 of 2007 and 440 of 2008 is modified to the aforesaid
extent.
(iii) The respondents-claimants shall be entitled to interest under
Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in accordance with
the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra
Vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari (supra).
(iv) The remaining part of the common Judgment and Award dated
11.03.2013 passed by the learned Reference Court in Land Acquisition
Reference Nos.85 of 2007 and 440 of 2008 shall remain unaltered.
(vi) The modified award be drawn accordingly.
(vii) Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
S P Rane
Checking your session…