THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. COLLECTOR, OSMANABADversusSAGIJANBAI W/O NAVNATH LOMATE AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:25659
                                              1
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

                                 905 FIRST APPEAL NO. 580 OF 2019

               The State of Maharashtra
               Thr. Collector, Osmanabad                                 .. Appellant
                     Versus

               Sagijanbai W/o Navnath Lomate And Another               .. Respondents
                                                 …..
                              Shri. V. M. Chate, AGP for the Appellant
                Shri. D. M. Mane and Shri. A. N. Nagargoje, Advocate for Respdt No.1
                                                 …..

                                             CORAM :      NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
                                             Dated    :   JULY 02, 2026

               FINAL ORDER :-

               .     This is the First Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition

               Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘L.A. Act’) by the State against

               the Judgment and Award dated 25.06.2013 passed by the learned Joint

               Civil Judge Senior Division, Osmanabad, in Land Acquisition Reference

               No.710/1991 (for short, ‘LAR’) determining the rate of Rs.1,35,000/-

               per Hectare for the acquired land of Respondent No.1 bearing Block

               No.307 admeasuring 2-Hectares, 42-Ares situated in village Deolali, Tal.

               Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad for the Percolation Tank.



               2.    The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short, ‘SLAO’) issued

               Section - 4 Notification on 28.12.1987. The Section-6 Notification was

               issued on 30.12.1988. The Award was declared on 31.03.1990.

               The SLAO determined the market rate of the acquired land
                                2
@ Rs.14,000/- per Hectare. Being not satisfied with the compensation

determined by the SLAO, Respondent No.1 - Claimant filed the above

referred Reference Application. The Claimant examined herself and

brought on record the relevant documents including sale-instance.

Evidence was not led by the Acquiring Body and the State. By the

impugned Judgment and Award, the learned Reference Court enhanced

the compensation as referred above.



3.    Heard the learned AGP for the Appellant – State and the learned

Advocate for Respondent No.1 – Claimant. With their assistance,

perused the papers on record.


A)    It is submitted by the learned AGP for the State that, the sale

instance which was considered by the learned Reference Court was from

the different village. There was no evidence to show the distance

between the acquired land and the land which was the subject matter of

the sale-deed. Though 7/12 extract of the acquired land shows the Well,

the crop pattern shows that of Jirayat land. The compensation is

enhanced more than the entitlement of Respondent No.1. He submitted

that, the impugned Judgment and Award be set aside and the

compensation determined by the SLAO be maintained.


B)    The learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 – Claimant submits

that, on the basis of the evidence on record and the Judgment and
                                3
Award in connected land references arising out of the same Award was

considered by the learned Reference Court. The enhancement is based

on the evidence on record and therefore, no interference was called for

in the impugned Judgment and Award and the Appeal be dismissed.


4.    There is no dispute with regard to the purpose for which the land

was acquired and the extent of the land belonging to Respondent No.1

that was acquired. The SLAO classified the acquired lands into Groups I

and II. According to the classification of the land revenue records, and

after considering the sale instances and the rates prescribed in the Ready

Reckoner, the SLAO determined the market value of the land of

Respondent No.1 at Rs.14,000/- per Hectare. Respondent No.1

examined herself and brought on record the sale instance (Exh.51)

dated 28.01.1986 which was from the different village Kolegaon. The

said transaction related to 0-Hectare, 20-Ares of seasonally irrigated

land and reflected a sale consideration at the rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per

Hectare. Considering the date of Section – 4 Notification, the said sale

instance was prior in point of time. The learned Reference Court has

observed that, there was nothing on record to establish that, the sale

instance below Exh.51 was not bona fide. The learned Reference Court

also took into consideration that, the said sale instance was in respect of

the land from different village and there was no evidence to show the

distance between the acquired land and the land which was the subject

matter of the sale instance. Considering that the Respondents (in LAR)
                                4
had not specifically denied that both the lands were not similar,

considered the said sale instance for determining the compensation. The

learned Reference Court also considered the Judgment in LAR

No.744/1991 which was out of the same Award and wherein the rate for

Jirayat land was determined at Rs.90,000/- per Hectare. On that basis,

the enhancement in the present matter is granted by the learned

Reference Court. By considering the existence of Well in the acquired

land and crop pattern, the learned Reference Court has considered the

acquired land as seasonally irrigated land. On the basis of the formula

in respect of determining the rates for the semi-irrigated land, fully

irrigated land and Jirayat land, the rate is determined Rs.1,35,000/- per

Hectare.


5.      The observations by the learned Reference Court are based on the

material and evidence on record. As Respondent No.1 had established

her claim for enhanced compensation, the learned Reference Court has

rightly appreciated the evidence on record and granted the enhanced

compensation. More so, the observation in the Judgment by the learned

Reference Court shows that, the ground of parity was also considered

while    determining   the   enhanced    compensation.    The   impugned

Judgment is well reasoned and based on evidence on record.

Accordingly, no interference is called for with the findings of the learned

Reference Court regarding the determination of the market value and

the enhanced compensation. However, the Award requires modification
                                  5
only with regard to the computation of interest.


6.       As regards the interest is concerned, the same be calculated as per

the decision of this Court in The State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva

Rangari, 2016 (4) ALL MR 513 . The learned Advocate for the Claimant

tendered across the bar copy of the order dated 03.01.2022 in Civil

Appeal No. _____of 2022 (Arising from the SLP (C) No._____ of 2022)

(Diary No. 17566 of 2020), wherein the Claimant was held entitled for

the interest from the date of taking possession of the land by considering

the decision in R. L. Jain (D) by Lrs, vs. D.D.A. & Ors reported in (2004)

4 SCC 79. The Full Bench of this Court in the above referred Judgment

in Kailas Shiva Rangari (supra) considered the said decision in the case

of R. L. Jain (supra). In this view of the matter, the following order is

passed.

                                      ORDER

i)       The Appeal is allowed only to the extent of interest to be
computed in view of Judgment in Kailas Shiva Rangari (supra).

ii)      The Award of the learned Reference Court shall stand modified
accordingly.


iii)     Record and Proceedings be sent back to the learned Reference
Court.




                                                ( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. )

GGP