DNYANOBA NINGRAM BUDHODKARversusTHE STATE OF MAH

2026:BHC-AUG:41126

                                                                                FA 533/05
                                                   1

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  7 FIRST APPEAL NO. 533 OF 2005

                               DNYANOBA NINGRAM BUDHODKAR
                                             VERSUS
                                        THE STATE OF MAH
                                                ...
                           Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A.V. Indrale-Patil
                            AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. A.D. Wange
                                                ...

                                        CORAM       : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                        Dated       : August 31, 2026

            PER COURT :-

            1.    As the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1982, heard

            finally with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.

            2.    By this appeal, the appellant/original claimant assails the judgment

            and award dated 5.2.2005 passed by the learned III Ad-hoc Additional

            District Judge, Latur in LAR No. 106/1987, whereby the reference court has

            not granted compensation as claimed by the claimant and partly allowed the

            reference.

            3.    The land of the claimant admeasuring 54 R. from Survey No. 22

            situated at village Budhoda, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur was acquired for the

            purpose of distribution of 1980 RF of Tawarja Project. Notification under

            section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 1.4.1982. The

            Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) has passed the award on 23.3.1984

            and granted compensation at the rate of Rs.14,000/- per H. Being

            dissatisfied with the award of the SLAO, the claimant filed an application

            before the Collector for referring the matter under section 18 of the Act for

            proper determination of the market value of the acquired land. The learned
                                                                   FA 533/05
                                       2

reference court after going through the evidence and examining the record,

enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.16,000/- per H. Being

dissatisfied with the same, the present appeal is filed by the original

claimant.

4.    Mr. A.V. Indrale-Patil, learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits

that as regards enhancement is concerned, before the reference court

claimant relied upon sale instance of other village which was 3-4 k.m. away,

but the SLAO has considered the sale instance from the same village from

where the lands were acquired. The only issue agitated by the learned

counsel is that section 23(1-a) of the Act came to be amended on

24.9.1984 and therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Raghubir Singh reported in 1989 AIR

(SC) 1933 and in the case of Panna Lal Ghosh and Ors. Vs. Land Acquisition

Officer reported in AIR 2004 1179, the claimant is entitled to receive 12%

component and 15% more solatium as only 15% solatium was granted. He

therefore prays to allow the appeal.

5.    Per contra, Mr. A.D. Wange, learned AGP submits that as the

amendment was effected on 30.9.1984 and in this case award was passed

by the SLAO on 23.3.1984 and therefore, the amendment cannot be given

effect in the present case. He submits that the reference court has already

granted 15% solatium. He therefore prays to dismiss the appeal.

6.    Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and

having gone through the record and proceedings, I have also perused the

impugned judgment and award. The reference court has decided the

reference vide it’s order dated 5.5.2005. The clause 23(1-A) of the Act is

amended on 30.9.1984 and without considering the amendment only 15%
                                                                    FA 533/05
                                          3

solatium was granted by the reference court. However, in view of the the

law laid down in the cases cited supra, the claimant is entitled to receive the

component at the rate of Rs.12% and 15% more solatium and therefore, to

that extent, the order passed by the learned reference court is modified as

claimant is entitled to receive component at the rate of 12% and 15% more

solatium.

7.      In view of the above, I pass the following order.

                                    ORDER

(i)     The appeal is partly allowed.

(ii)    The impugned judgment and award of the reference court is modified

and the appellant/claimant is entitled to receive component at the rate of

12% and also entitled to receive solatium at the rate of 30% i.e. more

solatium at the rate of 15%.

(iii)   Rest of the award is confirmed.

(iv)    The modified award be drawn up accordingly.

(v)     Pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of.



                                              ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )

ssc/