Bombay High Court
HAMBIRRAO NAMDEO SABALEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The Court held that the Exhibit 19 sale is a comparable transaction and that uniform compensation rates should be applied, enhancing awards accordingly while dismissing the appeal that treated the land as irrigated.
Summary
The appellants challenged compensation awards granted by reference courts for land acquired for the Sina‑Kolegaon Medium Project, arguing that a 1994 sale (Exhibit 19) should be treated as a comparable transaction and that a uniform compensation rate should apply. The State and the acquiring body contended that the awards were adequate and that the nature of the land (irrigated vs dry) had been correctly determined. The Court examined whether the Exhibit 19 sale was a genuine comparable sale for all the references and assessed the character of the land in First Appeal No. 633 of 2016. It held that the sale was comparable and that uniform rates should be applied, enhancing compensation to Rs 1,00,000 per acre for irrigated land, Rs 75,000 for seasonally irrigated land, and Rs 50,000 for dry land, while dismissing the appeal where the land was held dry. The modified awards were ordered, statutory benefits and interest were granted per State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari, and the remaining awards were confirmed.
Issues considered
- Whether the 1994 sale (Exhibit 19) constitutes a genuine comparable sale for determining compensation in all the appeals.
- Whether the land in First Appeal No. 633 of 2016 should be classified as irrigated or dry land.
- Whether the compensation awards should be enhanced uniformly across the different categories of land.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4, 6
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- comparable sale
- irrigated land
- dry land
- enhancement
- statutory benefits
- interest
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:36989
Dilwale 1 902-fa-3003-17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
902 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3003 OF 2017
Babasaheb Bhanudas Lomte
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 633 OF 2016
Hambirrao Namdeo Sabale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 868 OF 2017
Rajaram Jagannath Lomate
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1156 OF 2017
Bapu Jagannath Lomate
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4304 OF 2016
Mahadeos Namdeo Sabale
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Abhijit S. More
AGP for Respondents: Mr. A. M. Phule
Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. S. S. Dande
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 11.08.2026
Dilwale 2 902-fa-3003-17.odt
PER COURT :
1. Admit.
2. As these appeals are pending since 2016 and 2017 and despite
service, none appeared on behalf of respondent-acquiring body. Mr. S. S.
Dande, who is on panel of acquiring body is requested to appear in the
present appeals. Mr. S. S. Dande graciously accepted the same and
showed readiness to work out the matter for final disposal.
3. As the acquisition proceedings are of the year 1997, the appeals are
being heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the
respective parties.
4. In First Appeal No.3003 of 2017, the claimant is challenging the
judgment and award dated 29.09.2010 passed by learned Joint Civil
Judge Senior Division, Osmanabad in LAR No.82 of 2006. In First Appeal
Nos.868 and 1156 of 2017, the claimants are aggrieved by the judgment
and award dated 17.07.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge Senior
Division, Paranda in LAR Nos.870 and 880 of 2011. In First Appeal
No.4304 of 2016, the claimant is aggrieved by the judgment and award
dated 27.11.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Paranda
in LAR No.656 of 2011. In First Appeal No.633 of 2016, the claimant is
aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 10.04.2016 passed by Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Paranda in LAR No.818 of 2011. All the
appellants are challenging the said awards against refusal by the
respective Reference Courts to grant enhancement to the extent claimed
Dilwale 3 902-fa-3003-17.odt
by them.
5. The lands of the claimants were acquired for the purpose of Sina-
Kolegaon, Medium Project. The notifications under Section 4 were
published on 06.02.1997, notifications under Section 6 were published
on 16.07.1998, the possession of the lands was obtained on 17.08.1996,
awards were passed on 29.03.2001. The claimants accepted the amounts
under protest and filed respective references against refusal to grant
enhancement to the extent claimed by them. The details of respective
First Appeals are as follows:
Sr No. FA No. LAR No. Compensation by Compensation by
SLAO Reference Court
1 3003/2017 82/2006 Rs.42,775/- Per H Rs.72,000/- for
irrigated land
2 4304/2016 656/2011 Rs.44,623/- Per H Rs.40,000/- for
non irrigated land
3 868/2017 870/2011 Rs.44,623/- Per H Rs.52,500/- for
seasonally
irrigated land
4 1156/2017 880/2011 Rs.44,623/- Per H Rs.52,500/- for
seasonally
irrigated land
5 633/2016 818/2011 Rs.44,623/- Per H Rs.50,000/- for
non irrigated land
6. The learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Abhijit More submits
that the claimant in First Appeal No.633 of 2016 had relied upon sale
instance below Exhibit 19 dated 08.11.1994, whereby 2 acre irrigated
land situated at Domgaon was sold for Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.60,000/- per
acre for irrigated land). The learned Reference Court ought to have
Dilwale 4 902-fa-3003-17.odt
treated the said sale instance as comparable sale instance in all the First
Appeals, thereby granting uniform rate of compensation in all references.
He further submits that the land in First Appeal No.633 of 2016 was
irrigated land as there existed a well and Kharif crops were being
cultivated at the relevant time and thus learned Reference Court ought to
have treated the said land as irrigated land. Therefore, he submits that
the First Appeals be allowed and compensation be enhanced.
7. Per contra, Mr. S. S. Dande, learned counsel for acquiring body and
Mr. A. M. Phule, learned AGP for the respondent-State strongly opposed
the prayer for enhancement and submitted that the compensation
granted by SLAO was adequate and no further enhancement is required.
The learned Reference Court has already determined the nature of lands
in respective references and no interference is required in the impugned
awards. They further submit that the land in First Appeal No.633 of 2016
is dry land and to that extent the learned Reference Court has already
recorded appropriate findings based on the evidence on record.
Therefore, they pray to dismiss the First Appeals.
8. Having considering rival submissions of the learned counsel and
upon perusal of record and proceedings with the able assistance of the
learned counsel, the short issue for consideration is whether the learned
Reference Court ought to have treated sale instance below Exhibit 19 as
genuine and comparable sale instance in all the reference proceedings.
The learned Reference Court has treated sale instance below Exhibit 19
Dilwale 5 902-fa-3003-17.odt
dated 08.11.1994 as a comparable sale instance in First Appeal No.633 of
2016, whereby the irrigated land adm. 2 acres was sold for Rs.1,20,000/-
(Rs.60,000/- per acre for irrigated land). The learned Reference Court
worked out market value of dry land in the said First Appeal to
Rs.40,000/- per acre. As the said sale instance is two and half years prior
to Section 4 notification, the learned Reference Court applied 10%
escalation for two and half years, thereby arriving at the market value of
Rs.50,000/- per acre for dry land.
9. In all these references involved in these First Appeals, this sale
instance was filed on record but while determining rate of compensation
the learned Reference Court has granted distinguishable rates, thus I am
of the opinion that as all these references arise out of same project and
same acquisition proceedings, the learned Reference Court ought to have
granted uniform rate of compensation by treating sale instance below
Exhibit 19 as comparable sale instance. Hence, I am inclined to grant
compensation in tune with sale instance at Exhibit 19 in First Appeal
No.633 of 2016 i.e. @ Rs.50,000/- per acre for dry land. Therefore,
compensation for irrigated land would be Rs.1,00,000/- per acre and for
seasonally irrigated land would be Rs.75,000/- per acre.
10. The contention that the land in First Appeal No.633 of 2016 is
irrigated, is not supported by adequate evidence and in absence of source
of water, the land therein cannot be treated as irrigated land. The learned
Reference Court has recorded finding to that effect that the land in the
Dilwale 6 902-fa-3003-17.odt
said first appeal is dry land, is appropriate. Hence, I proceed to pass
following order:-
ORDER
i. First Appeal Nos.3003, 868 and 1156 of 2017 and 4304 of 2016
are partly allowed.
ii. First Appeal No.633 of 2016 is dismissed.
iii. The claimant in First Appeal No.3003 of 2017 is entitled to
compensation @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre for irrigated land, the
claimants in First Appeal Nos.868 and 1156 of 2017 are entitled to
compensation @ Rs.75,000/- per acre for seasonally irrigated land
and the claimant in First Appeal No.4304 of 2016 is entitled to
compensation @ Rs.50,000/- per acre for dry land and to that
extent respective impugned awards stand modified.
iv. The claimants shall be entitled to statutory benefits and interest as
per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra
v. Kailash Shiva Rangari, 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457.
v. Rest of the impugned awards stand confirmed.
vi. Modified awards be drawn accordingly.
vii. Deficit Court fee be paid.
viii. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
Checking your session…