Bombay High Court
DAYANAND VISHWANATH DHAVALE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court held that the 50% deduction was excessive and should be reduced to 20%, thereby increasing the compensation payable to the claimants.
Summary
The appellants, original claimants in a 2008 land acquisition for the Karkheli Storage Tank, challenged the compensation awarded by the Learned Additional Officer (LAO) as inadequate. They argued that the Reference Court had improperly deducted 50% from the sale consideration of a comparable sale (Exhibit 16) without a clear basis, and that compensation for trees was insufficient. The acquiring body contended that the LAO had already considered all relevant sale instances and that only one claimant had provided evidence, so no enhancement was warranted. The Court examined the valuation methodology and found the 50% deduction excessive, directing a reduced deduction of 20% instead. Consequently, the Court partially allowed the claimants' appeals, increased the per‑hectare compensation for dry, seasonally irrigated, and irrigated lands, and dismissed the acquiring body’s appeals, leaving the rest of the Reference Court’s order intact.
Issues considered
- Whether the 50% deduction from the sale consideration of Exhibit 16 was justified.
- Whether the compensation awarded for the acquired lands and trees was adequate under the applicable land acquisition law.
- Whether the Reference Court erred in enhancing compensation based on limited evidence.
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- valuation
- sale consideration
- deduction
- trees
- Karkheli Storage Tank
- High Court
- appeal
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:29355
904-FA-699-2017.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
904 FIRST APPEAL NO. 699 OF 2017
Megha Pralhadrao Biradar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 576 OF 2017
Rohidas Mahadu Dhawle
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 577 OF 2017
Dayanand Vishwanath Dhavale And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 5001 OF 2017
Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And Ors
VERSUS
Uttam Panditrao Patil And Anr
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 5075 OF 2017
Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And Ors
VERSUS
Gangadhar Bhaurao Jadhav And Ors
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 5083 OF 2017
Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And Ors
VERSUS
Wahedabi Sayyed Lal
Shubham Page 1 of 12
904-FA-699-2017.doc
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2032 OF 2016
Sadanand Shamrao Valakatte
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 5086 OF 2017
Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And Ors
VERSUS
Jabbar Sayyadlal Sayyad And Anr
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 5087 OF 2017
Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And Ors
VERSUS
Subhash Narshing Kamble And Anr
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 5082 OF 2017
Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And Ors
VERSUS
Sayyed Ismail Sayyed Lal And Ors
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1770 OF 2016
Sangram Ramrao Bhalke
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1776 OF 2016
Ramesh Sopan Mogale And Anr
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
Shubham Page 2 of 12
904-FA-699-2017.doc
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1774 OF 2016
Uttam Panditrao Patil And Anr
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2031 OF 2016
Deelip Ramrao Patil And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 5072 OF 2017
Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And Ors
VERSUS
Sikandar Bapurao Holkar
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 5076 OF 2017
Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And Ors
VERSUS
Nagnath Sambhaji Bhalke
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 5084 OF 2017
Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And Ors
VERSUS
Chandrkant Raghunath Jadhav (died) Thr Lrs Sulochanabai And Ors
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 5089 OF 2017
Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And Ors
VERSUS
Afsarbi Sayyadlal Sayyed (died) Thr Lrs Malanbee And Anr
WITH
Shubham Page 3 of 12
904-FA-699-2017.doc
FIRST APPEAL NO. 5000 OF 2017
Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And Ors
VERSUS
Ramesh Sopan Mogale And Anr
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 5073 OF 2017
Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And Ors
VERSUS
Daivshala Sriram Tapshalkar
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1771 OF 2016
Hansraj Sopan Kamble Died Thr Lrs Panchasheela And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 691 OF 2017
Nagnath Sambhaji Bhalke
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 5088 OF 2017
Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And Ors
VERSUS
Sayyed Habib Sayyed Lal
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 635 OF 2016
Gangadhar Bhaurao Jadhav And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 666 OF 2017
Shubham Page 4 of 12
904-FA-699-2017.doc
Pralahd Ganpatrao Biradar Died Thr Lrs Muktabai And Ors
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1773 OF 2016
Nagnath Sambhjaji Bhalke And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4994 OF 2017
Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And Ors
VERSUS
Sangram Ramrao Bhalke
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 5080 OF 2017
Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And Ors
VERSUS
Sadanand Shamrao Valakatte
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1768 OF 2016
Govind Gunwant Bhalke And Anr
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 5074 OF 2017
Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And Ors
VERSUS
Bapurao Narayan Holkar (died) Thr Lrs Awadabai And Anr
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1765 OF 2016
Shubham Page 5 of 12
904-FA-699-2017.doc
Sambhaji Ganpatrao Kamble
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4999 OF 2017
Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And Ors
VERSUS
Madhav Gurunath Bhalke And Ors
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4992 OF 2017
Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And Ors
VERSUS
Madhukar Sopan Gaikwad
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1772 OF 2016
Rasikabai Srirang Kamble And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2498 OF 2022
IN FA/2033/2016
Venkatrao Namdeorao Kasle And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4995 OF 2017
Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And Ors
VERSUS
Govind Gunwant Bhalke And Anr
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4993 OF 2017
Shubham Page 6 of 12
904-FA-699-2017.doc
Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And Ors
VERSUS
Megha Pralhadrao Biradar
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4996 OF 2017
Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And Ors
VERSUS
Nagnath Sambhaji Bhalke And Ors
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4991 OF 2017
Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And Ors
VERSUS
Pralhad Ganpatrao Biradar And Anr
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4997 OF 2017
Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And Ors
VERSUS
Jaiprakash Sanganna Mogale
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4998 OF 2017
Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And Ors
VERSUS
Sambhaji Ganpatrao Kamble
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1775 OF 2016
Madhav Gurunath Bhalke And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 5081 OF 2017
Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And Ors
Shubham Page 7 of 12
904-FA-699-2017.doc
VERSUS
Deelip Ramrao Patil And Anr
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 5085 OF 2017
Executive Engineer, (medium Project) Division, Latur And Ors
VERSUS
Venkiatrao Namdeorao Kasle And Ors
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2030 OF 2016
Subhash Narsing Kamble And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2033 OF 2016
Venkatrao Namdeorao Kasle And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2034 OF 2016
Chandrakant Raghunath Jadhav Since Deceased Thr Lrs Sulochanabai
Chandrakant Jadhav And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2036 OF 2016
Sikandar Bapurao Holkar
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2037 OF 2016
Afsarbi Sayyadlal Sayyed Since Deceased Through Lrs Malanbee Khadarsab
Shubham Page 8 of 12
904-FA-699-2017.doc
Jamadar And Anr
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2038 OF 2016
Jabbar Sayyadlal Sayyad And Khajalal Minor U/g Mother Marembee
Sayyadlal Sayyad
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2035 OF 2016
Bapurao Narayan Holkar Since Deceased Thr His Lrs Awadabai And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Mr. Ashwin S. Sakolkar a/w H. B. Nandagavale h/f Mr. Vijay G. Sakolkar for
the Appellants.
Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for State.
Mr. B. R. Surwase for the acquiring body.
….
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 10 JULY 2026
P. C.:
1. Admit.
2. As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 2008, heard finally with
the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.
3. In all these Appeals, the Appellants-original claimants are aggrieved
by the judgment and award dated 4 th August 2015, passed by learned Jt.
Civil Judge Senior Division, Udgir in several LARs, whereby enhanced
compensation came to be granted.
Shubham Page 9 of 12
904-FA-699-2017.doc
4. The lands of the claimants were acquired for construction of Karkheli
Storage Tank, Lohara. The possession was taken on 4 th April 2007 and 17th
October 2007. The notification under Section 4 was published on 27 th April
2007. The award was made on 17th June 2008 and the Petitioner came to
know about the award on 23rd June 2008. The LAO granted compensation
@Rs.2,20,000/-, Rs.3,30,000/- and Rs.4,40,00/- per hector for dry lands,
seasonally irrigated lands and irrigated lands respectively.
5. Mr. Ashwin Sakolkar a/w Mr. H. B. Nandagavale h/f Mr. Vijay
Sakolkar, learned counsel for the claimants submit that the LAO granted
inadequate compensation against which the claimants preferred references
wherein the quantum of compensation came to be enhanced by relying upon
sale instances at Exhs.16 to 18. The learned Reference Court erroneously
deducted 50% from the sale consideration of sale instance at Exh.16 while
determining market value of the lands acquired. He further submits that
such excessive deduction is unjust. He contends that the LAO granted
meager compensation for the trees. The claimants have proved valuer’s
report but the Reference Court failed to enhance the compensation as per
the market value stated in those reports. Therefore, he submits that the
claimants have made out a case for further enhancement in the present
Appeals. Hence, he prays to allow the Appeals filed by the claimants and
dismiss the Appeals filed by the acquiring body.
6. Mr. Surwase appears for the acquiring body in some matters. Despite
Shubham Page 10 of 12
904-FA-699-2017.doc
service, none appears for the acquiring body in other matters. Upon request,
Mr. Surwase appears in other matters on behalf of the acquiring body.
7. Mr. Surwase, learned counsel appearing for the acquiring body
submits that LAO while determining compensation has already referred in
all 35 sale instances between the period from 7 th January 2005 to 8th March
2007. He further submits that only one claimant has stepped into witness
box and rest of the claimants have not proved their case for enhancement as
to whether acquired lands were dry, semi irrigated or irrigated and the
learned Reference Court ought not to have enhanced the compensation on
the basis of sole testimony of one claimant. He therefore, prays to dismiss
the Appeals filed by the claimants and allow the Appeals filed by the
acquiring body.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and gone
through record. The claimants had relied upon the sale instance below
Exh.16 which discloses that the southern boundary of the land therein is
abutting the Renapur road and thus it has facility of road frontage and easy
access. Thus, the land in said sale instance fetches higher value, whereas the
lands acquired do not have such facility which reduces its value. Therefore,
the learned Reference Court reduced 50% from the value of sale
consideration of the land in the said sale instance. But while applying such
deduction, the learned Reference Court has not given any criteria for such
deduction. It has failed to give reason for arriving at deduction of 50% from
Shubham Page 11 of 12
904-FA-699-2017.doc
the value of the sale consideration only upon guesswork. In my opinion, the
deduction of 50% is excessive and impugned award warrant interference to
that extent. Thus, I am inclined to partly allow the present Appeals thereby
applying deduction of 20% in the sale consideration of the sale instance
below Exh.16. Hence, I pass the following order:-
ORDER
i. The Appeals filed by the claimants are partly allowed and the
Appeals filed by the acquiring body are dismissed.
ii. The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.10,48,000/-,
Rs.15,72,960/-, Rs.20,97,280/- per hector for dry lands, seasonal
irrigated lands and irrigated lands respectively.
iii. Rest of the order passed by the learned Reference Court stands
confirmed.
iv. Award be drawn up accordingly.
9. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]
Shubham Page 12 of 12
Checking your session…