Bombay High Court
RAMSING SHAMSING GIRASEversusCOLLECTOR DHULE AND ORS
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
- Bench
- SHAILESH P BRAHME
Holding
The Court held that 85% of the private valuer's report must be accepted for compensation, overturning the Reference Court's 75% acceptance.
Summary
The appellants challenged the compensation awarded for the acquisition of house properties in Divi village, Dhule, arguing that the Reference Court had arbitrarily accepted only 75% of the private valuer's report. They relied on earlier decisions of the Court, including a common order dated 05.12.2025 and a Lok Adalat settlement, which consistently applied an 85% acceptance rate. The respondents contended that the 85% rule was not mandatory and should not be imposed in the present cases. The Court examined the precedent, held that the 85% formula is the established rule and that the 10% deduction was unlawful, and ordered the compensation to be enhanced to 85% of the valuation reports. Accordingly, the appeals were partly allowed, the enhanced amounts were specified, and interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act was directed to be paid.
Issues considered
- What percentage of a private valuer's rate should be accepted for compensation in land acquisition proceedings?
- Whether the formula of accepting 85% of the valuation report constitutes a binding rule of law?
- Whether the Reference Court's deduction of 10% from the valuation report is arbitrary and violative of precedent?
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 28, 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- valuation
- private valuer
- percentage acceptance
- Section 28
- Lok Adalat
- precedent
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:3955
1 fa 336.25
IN THE HIGH COURT of JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
31 FIRST APPEAL NO. 336 of 2025
Shankar Kalu Girase
Since deceased through his L.Rs.
Gorakh shankar Girase and others .. Appellants
Versus
The Collector, Collector Office,
Dhule and others .. Respondents
Shri K. M. More, Advocate a/w Shri Firoj Ahmad Shirpurkar and
Shri Jay R. Paundale, Advocates for the Appellant.
Shri N. D. Raje, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri Ajay D. Pawar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3.
AND
32 FIRST APPEAL NO. 337 of 2025
Karan Govinda Girase .. Appellant
Versus
The Collector (Land Acquisition) No. 1,
Medium Irrigation Project Dhule
and others .. Respondents
Shri K. M. More, Advocate a/w Shri Firoj Ahmad Shirpurkar and
Shri Jay R. Paundale, Advocates for the Appellant.
Shri S. N. Morampalle, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3.
Shri Ajay D. Pawar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2.
AND
33 FIRST APPEAL NO. 580 of 2025
Nathesingh Onkar Girase .. Appellant
Versus
The Collector Dhule and others .. Respondents
Shri K. M. More, Advocate a/w Shri Firoj Ahmad Shirpurkar and
Shri Jay R. Paundale, Advocates for the Appellant.
2 fa 336.25
Shri N. D. Raje, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri Ajay D. Pawar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3.
AND
34 FIRST APPEAL NO. 581 of 2025
Komal Bhimsing Girase .. Appellant
Versus
The Collector, Collector Office Dhule
and others .. Respondents
Shri K. M. More, Advocate a/w Shri Firoj Ahmad Shirpurkar and
Shri Jay R. Paundale, Advocates for the Appellant.
Shri S. N. Morampalle, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri Ajay D. Pawar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3.
AND
35 FIRST APPEAL NO. 587 of 2025
Ramsing Shamsing Girase .. Appellant
Versus
The Collector Dhule and others .. Respondents
Shri K. M. More, Advocate a/w Shri Firoj Ahmad Shirpurkar and
Shri Jay R. Paundale, Advocates for the Appellant.
Shri N. D. Raje, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri Ajay D. Pawar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3.
AND
37 FIRST APPEAL NO. 589 of 2025
Sushmbai Ramsing Girase .. Appellant
Versus
The Collector, Collector Office Dhule
and others .. Respondents
Shri K. M. More, Advocate a/w Shri Firoj Ahmad Shirpurkar and
Shri Jay R. Paundale, Advocates for the Appellant.
Shri N. D. Raje, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri Ajay D. Pawar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3.
3 fa 336.25
AND
38 FIRST APPEAL NO. 591 of 2025
Ramsing Shamsing Girase .. Appellant
Versus
The Collector Dhule and others .. Respondents
Shri K. M. More, Advocate a/w Shri Firoj Ahmad Shirpurkar and
Shri Jay R. Paundale, Advocates for the Appellant.
Shri S. N. Morampalle, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri Ajay D. Pawar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3.
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 28TH JANUARY, 2026.
FINAL ORDER :
. Heard both sides finally.
2. These appeals can be disposed of by common order relying on
earlier decisions rendered by the Coordinate Benches arising out of
self same acquisition proceedings.
3. The acquisition is in respect of house properties from village
Divi, Tq. Sindhkheda, Dist. Dhule. Notification U/Sec. 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act was issued on 30.03.2010. Award was passed
on 18.05.2013. Appellants have produced on record valuation
reports. The valuer was also examined. The Reference Court
accepted valuation reports to the extent of 75%.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed on record the
consistent view taken by this Court in awarding compensation by
4 fa 336.25
accepting 85% of the rate given by the private valuer. According to
him common order dated 05.12.2025 passed in First Appeal No.
2071 of 2024 with other connected matters covers the present
matters.
5. Learned counsel for the acquiring body would oppose the
submissions. It is submitted that 85% of the rate given by the
valuer cannot be the rule of thumb. In a settlement before the Lok
Adalat that formula was accepted and that cannot be made
applicable in the present matters.
6. I have considered rival submissions of the parties.
7. While disposing of first appeal in Lok Adalat held on
08.02.2020 the formula of accepting rate to the extent of 85% of the
valuation report was adopted. It is further followed in batch of
appeals decided on 27th April, 2023 and the same has been
consistently followed while disposing of other first appeals. In
identical situation when house properties from self same village,
under self same notification were acquired, this Court vide
common order dated 05.12.2025 enhanced the compensation by
accepting the report of valuation to 85%. I find there is no
difficulty in accepting the said formula, otherwise the approach
would be discriminatory.
8. The Reference Court in the impugned judgment
unnecessarily deducted 10% from the valuation report. Therefore,
5 fa 336.25
valuation report is accepted to the extent of 75% only instead of
85%. The difference is writ large. The deduction of 10% is
arbitrary and against law laid down by this Court as referred
above.
9. Following material particulars are eloquent to show the total
valuation and its 85%
Sr. First Appeal Valuation Amount of 85% of the
No. No. Report valuation valuation
Exhibit report report
1 336/2025 44/C Rs. 6,65,000/- Rs. 5,65,250/-
2 337/2025 26/C Rs. 4,57,000/- Rs. 3,88,450/-
3 580/2025 34 Rs. 3,04,000/- Rs. 2,58,400/-
4 581/2025 39/C Rs. 4,32,000/- Rs. 3,67,200/-
5 587/2025 40/C Rs. 5,12,000/- Rs. 4,35,200/-
6 589/2025 31/C Rs. 2,66,000/- Rs. 2,26,100/-
7 591/2025 28/C Rs. 6,26,000/- Rs. 5,32,100/-
10. As stated in above referred chart, the appellants are entitled
to receive 85% of the valuation report shown in last column in each
appeal. It is desirable to allow first appeals.
11. I, therefore, pass following order.
ORDER
a. All these appeals are partly allowed.
b. Appellants are entitled to receive compensation in following
6 fa 336.25
manner :
i) In First Appeal No. 336 of 2025, the appellant is entitled to
receive Rs. 5,65,250/-.
ii) In First Appeal No. 337 of 2025, the appellant is entitled to
receive Rs. 3,88,450/-.
iii) In First Appeal No. 580 of 2025, the appellant is entitled to
receive Rs. 2,58,400/-.
iv) In First Appeal No. 581 of 2025, the appellant is entitled to
receive Rs. 3,67,200/-.
v) In First Appeal No. 587 of 2025, the appellant is entitled to
receive Rs. 4,35,200/-.
vi) In First Appeal No. 589 of 2025, the appellant is entitled to
receive Rs. 2,26,100/-.
vii) In First Appeal No. 591 of 2025, the appellant is entitled to
receive Rs. 5,32,100/-.
c. The respondent – acquiring body shall pay the interest under
Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act from the date of
award.
d. The respondent – acquiring body shall deposit the amount of
enhanced compensation as aforesaid, within a period of one
year from the date of this order directly in Reference Court
and on such deposit, all these appellants – claimants are
permitted to withdraw their respective amounts of
compensation along with the interest.
7 fa 336.25
e. In case the payment is delayed by the respondent – acquiring
body even after period of one year then it shall carry the
statutory interest till its realization.
f. The concerned appellants – claimants are directed to pay
deficit Court fees, if any, at the time of modification of
award.
g. The awards be modified accordingly.
h. Appellants shall not be entitled to interest and statutory
benefits for the delayed period in the respective appeals.
i. Record and proceedings shall be sent back.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]
bsb/Jan. 26
Checking your session…