Bombay High Court
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusSHRI RAMDAS CHANDRARAO MORE and ANR.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The reference court’s valuation of the structure/well was proper and the appeal lacked merit, leading to its dismissal.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the award of compensation for a structure and well in a land acquisition matter, contending that the reference court had wrongly granted such compensation. The respondents argued that the appeal memo did not specifically challenge the compensation for the structure/well and that the evidence on record was limited to the claim application in L.A.R. No.18/1995 and extracts from L.A.R. No.369/1989. The court examined the limited record and noted that the reference court had valued the structure/well at Rs 2,90,708 after considering the evidence before it. It held that the lack of a specific ground in the appeal memo did not invalidate the compensation awarded, and the State had not shown that the award was unsupported by evidence. Consequently, the court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it.
Issues considered
- Whether the compensation awarded for the structure/well is justified in the absence of a specific ground raised in the appeal memorandum.
- Whether the reference court correctly valued the structure/well based on the limited evidence available.
- Whether the appeal has any merit given the record and the prior findings in L.A.R. No.18/1995 and L.A.R. No.369/1989.
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- structure
- well
- appeal
- reference court award
- evidence
- dismissal
Judgment
LSP 1 10 fa 652.98.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
First Appeal No. 652 of 1998
The State of Maharashtra … Appellant
Versus
Shri Ramdas Chandrarao More and anr. … Respondents
Mr.A.R. Patil Addl.G.P. for the Appellant.
Mr. P.N.Joshi Advocate for the Respondents.
CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J
DATE : 27th August 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard Mr. Patil, learned Additional Government Pleader for
the State and Mr. Joshi, learned Advocate for the Respondents.
2. As recorded in the order dated 13th August 2026, learned AGP
has taken instructions about the connection in between the decision
in First Appeal No.649/1998 decided on 7th February 2025 and
Digitally
signed by
LATA
LATA
SUNIL
SUNIL
PANJWANI
PANJWANI Date:
2026.08.28
16:00:03
present appeal by the State Government. It is submitted to pass
+0530
appropriate orders.
3. Learned Advocate Joshi for the Respondents have invited my
attention to the following observations:
(i) Para No.10 of the Reference Court Award which deals with
the report given by the Executive Engineer about existence of
LSP 2 10 fa 652.98.doc
pipeline and compensation.
(ii) Rate enhanced by the Reference Court on Page No.22 of the
Award which refers to land value, trees, structure/well.
4. His submission is there is no specific ground taken in the
appeal memo for wrongly granting compensation for structure/well.
Whereas according to learned AGP even though the facts of this
appeal and facts of disposed of appeal may be having similarity but in
the L.A.R. No.18/1995 there is no evidence about existence of the
structure/well. So issue is limited as to grant of compensation for the
said structure.
5. When Court has gone through the record and proceedings,
every record is not available. What is available is only the reference
application made by the Claimant in L.A.R.No.18/1995, some 7/12
extract and pursis thereby adopting the evidence adduced in L.A.R.
No.369/1989. So Court has to decide the appeal on the basis of only
available record.
6. On the basis of above circumstances, this Court will have to
held that the Reference Court has valued the structure/well at
Rs2,90,708/- only after going through the evidence adduced before
him. Court is not giving much weightage what is pleaded or not
pleaded in the appeal memo or in the reference application because if
this compensation is wrongly granted, the State will have to show
that it was without evidence. I am unable to subscribe to the said
view.
LSP 3 10 fa 652.98.doc
7. In view of that there is no merit in the appeal. Appeal is
dismissed.
(S.M. MODAK, J.)
Checking your session…