Bombay High Court
GOVIND DHONDIBA GURSADEversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ANR
- Disposal
- Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
- Bench
- SANJAY A DESHMUKH
Holding
All first appeals are allowed; compensation is fixed at Rs 4,400 per Are in Appeal 646 and Rs 5,500 per Are in the other appeals, with statutory benefits and rental compensation at 9% per annum.
Summary
The heirs of Govind Dhondiba Gursude appealed against the Land Reference Court’s award of compensation for land acquired for the Hadolti Percolation Tank No.6. They argued that a sale exemplar dated 07‑01‑2002, showing a price of Rs 5,000 per Are for irrigated land, should be considered, with a 10% escalation for the one‑year gap between the sale and the acquisition notification, and that rental compensation at 9% per annum is due for the period from possession (20‑05‑2002) to notification (07‑08‑2003). The Court held the sale exemplar admissible under the Land Acquisition Act, applied the 10% escalation, awarded Rs 5,500 per Are in all appeals except Appeal 646 where a 20% size deduction reduced the rate to Rs 4,400 per Are, and granted rental compensation at 9% per annum. All first appeals were allowed, the earlier judgments were set aside, and the enhanced compensation with statutory benefits was ordered to be paid.
Issues considered
- Whether the sale exemplar is admissible and can be used to determine market value for compensation.
- Whether a 10% escalation for one year is applicable to the valuation.
- Whether rental compensation at 9% per annum is payable for the period between possession and notification.
- Whether a 20% deduction for larger land size in Appeal 646 is justified.
- Whether interest for the delay in filing the appeals is payable.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 56
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — s. 59
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4, 51A
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- escalation
- rental compensation
- interest
- sale exemplar
- percolation tank
- statutory benefits
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:17551
957-fa-644-2008
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 644 OF 2008
1. Govind Dhondiba Gursude
Since deceased through Legal Heirs,
Orig. Claimant.
1A. Sangita Govind Gursude,
Age: 36 years, Occ: Household.
1B. Prashant Govind Gursude,
Age: 11 years, Occ: Nil.
1C. Pragati Govind Gursude,
Age: 9 years, Occ: Nil.
(Appellant 1B and 1C, under guardianship of appellant no.1A)
All Resident of Anand Wadi Post Hadolti,
Tq. Ahmedpur, District Latur.
…..APPELLANTS.
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Local Sector, Latur.
…..RESPONDENTS
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 645 OF 2008
Vasant s/o Dhondiba Gursude,
Age: 30 years,
Occupation: Agriculture,
R/o Hadolti, Tq. Ahmedpur,
District Latur.
…..APPELLANT
Original claimant
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Local Sector, Latur.
…..RESPONDENTS
957-fa-644-2008
-2-
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 646 OF 2008
Dhondiba Mahadu Gursude
Died through his L.Rs.
1. Bhagirathi w/o Dhondiba @ Dhondiram Gursude,
Died through Lrs,
2. Bhimrao S/o. Dhondiba @ Dhondiram Gursude,
Age: 63 years, Occu: Agri,
3. Sangita w/o Govind Gursude,
Age: 48 years, Occu: H.H.,
4. Prashant s/o Govind Gursude,
Age: 27 years, Occu: Education,
5. Pragati d/o Govind Gursude,
Age: 24 years, Occu: Education.,
6. Usha w/o Anil Biradar,
Age: 53 years, Occu: H.H.,
7. Hanmant s/o Dhondiba @ Dhondiram Gursude,
Age: 48 years, Occu: H.H.
8. Hanmant s/o Dhondiba @ Dhondiram Gursude,
Age: 46 years, Occu: Agri,
All R/o Anandwadi,
Taluka Ahmedpur, District Latur.
…..Applicants
(Orig. Claimants)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Local Sector, Latur.
…..RESPONDENTS
957-fa-644-2008
-3-
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 647 OF 2008
Bhimrao S/o Dhondiba Gursude,
Age: 44 years,
Occupation Agriculture,
R/o Hadolti, Taluka Ahmedpur,
District Latur.
…..APPELLANT
Original claimants
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Local Sector, Latur.
…..RESPONDENTS
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 648 OF 2008
Hanmant s/o Dhondiba Gursude,
Age: 35 years,
Occupation Agriculture,
R/o Hadolti, Taluka Ahmedpur,
District Latur.
…..APPELLANT
Original claimants
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Local Sector, Latur.
…..RESPONDENTS
_____________________________________________________________
Mr. Ashwin V. Sakolkar a/w Mr. Anurag V. Sakolkar h/f Mr. V. G.
Sakolkar, Advocate for Appellants
Mr. Virendra V. Jahagirdar, AGP for Respondent-State
_____________________________________________________________
957-fa-644-2008
-4-
CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATED : 27TH FEBRUARY, 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. All these appeals are preferred against the judgment and
awards passed by the learned Land Reference Court, Latur as per the
following details of judgments and awards:
Sr. No. First Appeal No. L.A.R. No. Block No. Area
1 644 of 2008 278 of 2005 110 36R
2 645 of 2008 276 of 2005 110 36R
3 646 of 2008 274 of 2005 109 2H 02R
4 647 of 2008 277 of 2005 110 36R
5 648 of 2008 275 of 2005 110 36R
2. Learned Advocate for the appellants pointed out the
pleadings, the evidence, grounds of objections in the appeals and
reasons and findings in the impugned judgment. The claimants’ lands
situated at village Hadolti Tq. Ahmedpur, District Latur were acquired
for the purpose of Hadolti Percolation Tank No.6 by the notification
issued and published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 dated 07.08.2003. The possession of the acquired lands was
taken on 20.05.2002.
3. The claimants claimed compensation @Rs.7,500/- per Are.
The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs.935/- per Are and the
957-fa-644-2008
-5-
learned Land Reference Court awarded Rs.2804/- per Are for the
irrigated lands of the appellants.
4. Learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the
impugned judgment and award is not legal and correct. The learned
Reference Court has not considered the sale exemplar at Exhibit 17
dated 07.01.2002 in its proper perspective, which was relevant,
admissible and bonafide sale exemplar executed for 40 Are for
consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- i.e. Rs.5000/- per Are which was also
irrigated land. He submitted that the sale exemplar was executed 1 ½
years prior to the said acquisition proceedings. Therefore, claimants
are entitled for 10% escalation for one year. He prayed to allow the
appeals by setting aside the impugned judgment and award by
enhancing the amount of compensation.
5. Learned Advocate for the appellants further pointed out that
the possession of the appellants’ lands were taken on 20.05.2002 and
the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was
issued and published in the gazette dated 07.08.2003, after one year
of taking possession. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for rental
compensation @9% per annum as per the law laid down in the case
of Shankarrao Bhagwantrao Patil VS. State of Maharashtra, (2022)
15 SCC 657, in which paragraph no.20 reads as under:
957-fa-644-2008
-6-
“20. There is no evidence that such land was being put
to use by the landowners even prior to the taking of
possession by the State. But the fact remains that the
possession has been taken without payment of
compensation depriving the landowners of the right to use
land. Therefore, the land owners would be entitled to
interest on the amount of compensation awarded at the rate
of 9% per annum from the date of possession which was
taken in the year 1984/1992 till the date of notification
under Section 4 of the Act on the amount awarded after
acquisition that is the sum of Rs.70/- per square feet. The
appellant shall be entitled to others statutory benefits on the
compensation amount of Rs.70/- per square feet from the
date of award till realization.”
6. Learned AGP for the respondent-State strongly opposed the
appeal and submitted that reasonable amount of compensation is
awarded by the learned Reference Court. However, in Appeal No.646
of 2008, 2H 02R land is acquired, and for that deduction in the
amount of compensation is justified. He submitted that reasons and
findings of the learned Reference Court are not legal and no
interference is warranted in it. He prayed to dismiss the appeals.
7. Perused the Record and Proceedings, particularly the sale
exemplar at Exhibit 17 as well as oral and documentary evidence on
record. The sale exemplar at Exhibit 17 is admissible in evidence as
per Section 51A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. As per Section 59
of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the proof of the contents of the
document stands dispensed with (corresponding provisions under
Section 56 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023).
957-fa-644-2008
-7-
8. The witness Mr. Shripatrao Patil, C.W. No.2, purchaser of
the said land supported the claimant. His evidence and sale exemplar
at Exhibit-17 is not disproved by the respondents. The sale exemplar
was executed on 07.01.2002 for consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- i.e.
Rs.5000/- per Are. The land acquisition process was started by
notification under Section 4 dated 07.08.2003, one and half year after
the execution of the said sale deed. Therefore, the sale exemplar at
Exibit-17 is found to be relevant, applicable and a bonafide
transaction. Therefore, it is comparable sale exemolar. As per the sale
exemplar at Exhibit-17, 40 R land was sold. Except in the appeal
no.646 of 2008, all the acquired lands are less than 40R. Therefore,
there is no necessity for any deduction on the point of size of the land
while determining the value of the said acquired lands except in First
Appeal No.646 of 2008.
9. The land sold under the sale exemplar was irrigated land
and claimants’ lands are admittedly irrigated. In First Appeal No.646
of 2008, 2H and 2R land is acquired. Therefore, a 20% deduction for
bigger size of acquired land is justifiable. As per the sale exemplar,
Exhibit-17, price of the land purchased is Rs.5000/- per Are. If 20% is
deducted, then it comes to Rs.4000/- per Are. For one and half year,
10% escalation would just and proper, after escalation @10% for one
year is considered, the price comes to Rs.4400/- per Are for which the
957-fa-644-2008
-8-
appellants in First Appeal No.646 of 2008 are entitled.
10. The claimants’ lands were acquired as per notification under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 07.08.2003 and sale
exemplar is dated 07.01.2002. For that one year, 10% escalation in
price of acquired land needs to be awarded. If the 10 percent
escalation is granted in other appeals, then it comes to Rs.5500/- per
Are for the irrigated land. The claimants in all the appeals except
appeal no.646 of 2008 are entitled for the compensation @Rs.5500/-
per Are.
11. All the claimants are entitled for rental compensation from
20.05.2002 to 07.08.2003 @9% per annum. Learned Reference Court
has not given convincing reasons while appreciating the sale exemplar
at Exhibit 17 and awarded lesser amount of compensation
@Rs.2804/- per Are. Therefore, interference is warranted in the
impugned judgment and award. The impugned judgment and award
deserves to be set aside. Appeals deserve to be allowed. Hence, the
following order:
ORDER
a. All the First Appeals are allowed.
b. Impugned judgments and award are partly set
aside and modified as under:
957-fa-644-2008
-9-
i. Appellants are entitled for the
compensation @Rs.4400/- per Are in First Appeal
No.646 of 2008, and in other appeals, appellants
are entitled for the compensation @Rs.5500/-
per Are with all the statutory benefits including
the component, interest and solatium as per the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
ii. Appellants are also entitled for the
rental compensation @9% from 20.05.2002 to
07.08.2003.
c. It is clarified that the claimants shall not be entitled to
the interest for the period of delay, if any, condoned by this
Court caused for filing appeals.
d. The enhanced amount of compensation with statutory
benefits, shall be deposited in this Court within a period of six
months from today and on payment of deficit Court fees, if any,
the same shall be paid to the claimants.
e. The award be drawn up accordingly.
f. The Record and Proceedings be sent back.
g. Deficit Court fees, if any, be paid.
h. Pending Civil Applications, if any, are
disposed of.
(SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.)
Rushikesh/2026
Checking your session…