BHIMRAO ANANDRAO DHONDE and ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAH and ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:44241



                                                      1
                                                                          16 FA 684 OF 2006

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                     16 FIRST APPEAL NO. 684 OF 2006

                               BHIMRAO ANANDRAO DHONDE AND ORS
                                                VERSUS
                                     THE STATE OF MAH AND ORS
                                                   ...
                     Mr. V. D. Hon, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. B. T. Bodkhe,
                     Advocate for Appellants
                     Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondent-State
                                                   …

                                             CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                             DATED : 28th September 2026

                     P.C. :-

                     .         This First Appeal was admitted by the Division Bench of

                     this Court on 28.08.2026 as per the prevailing pecuniary

                     jurisdiction at the relevant time. At the instance of the parties,

                     I have heard this First Appeal for final disposal.

                     2.        Feeling dissatisfied with the deficit compensation

                     awarded by the learned 7th Ad-hoc Additional District Judge,

                     Beed in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.100 of 2005 vide

                     judgment and award dated 22.11.2005, the claimants are

                     before this Court.

                     3.        Considering the short controversy, the matter could be

                     disposed of as per the observations made herein.
                               2
                                                 16 FA 684 OF 2006

4.    Appellants’ agricultural land admeasuring 6 Hectares 85

R located at village Choba Nimgaon, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed in

Gat No.213 was acquired by the respondent/State for the

public purpose of construction of Village Tank No.6.

5.    Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition

Act was published on 31.07.2003, and an award was passed

on 05.11.2004 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The

authority fixed the rate of compensation at Rs.870/- per R.

Feeling dissatisfied with the same, the claimants filed a

reference under Section 18 of the Act before the Reference

Court.

6.    After hearing the parties, vide judgment and award

dated 22.11.2005, the learned 7th Ad-hoc Additional District

Judge, Beed found that the claimants were entitled for

enhancement. However, the enhancement was granted only

by awarding additional compensation of Rs.400/- per R. Being

dissatisfied with the same, the claimants are before this Court.

7.    Mr. V. D. Hon, learned Senior Advocate instructed by

Mr. B. T. Bodkhe, learned Advocate for the appellants takes

me to the observations of the Reference Court and submits
                               3
                                                 16 FA 684 OF 2006

that the findings are perverse to the discussion. He submits

that on one hand, the Reference Court holds the subject

matter land as an irrigated land and also relies on the sale

instances however, while granting compensation, for no

justifiable reason, the compensation is awarded at a lower

rate. With this, Mr. Hon, learned Senior Advocate prays to

allow the First Appeal.

8.    Mr. R. K. Ingole, learned AGP would stand by the

observations and the findings recorded by the Reference

Court. He would submit that there is no error in the findings

recorded by the Reference Court and hence, the appeal be

dismissed.

9.    I have heard both the sides extensively.

10.   There is no dispute as regards the facts of the case. The

dates of the land acquisition proceedings are admitted by both

the sides. So far as the discussion part is concerned, it is also

unambiguous that the Reference Court has recorded its

observation at paragraph No.13 which is reproduced as

follows :
                           4
                                              16 FA 684 OF 2006


“13] The 7/12 extract of the land in question is
produced vide exh. 23, it indicates there was water
of well available to the land and there were mango
trees, house and stone bunds situated in the land.
The cultivation column is indicating crops like
bajara, tur, chilly, sugar-cane, wheat etc. for the
year 1995 to 2000. The tax receipts produced vide
exh. 24 to 30 are indicating that the petitioners
used to pay land revenue at higher rate. The
receipts vide exh. 31 to 39 produced by the
petitioners in order to show supply of sugar-cane to
kada Sugar- factory, the M.S.E.B. bills are also
produced on record vide exh. 40 to 42 in order to
show installation of electric motor was made by the
petitioners on the well for the for the purpose of
suppling water to the acquired land. No doubt, all
these documents are clear to hold that the acquired
land was irrigated land, having additional facility
of water of well and the petitioners had improved
the quality of their land by installing electric motor
on the well and also used to pay land revenue for
the irrigated land. P.W. No. Shri. Jaher Patil, also
deposed on oath that he had observed the well,
bore well, house and stone bunds in the acquired
land. The award, E-Statement also supports these
facts that the super structures were acquired by the
Govt. along with their land also. In view of the
facts it can be said that the acquired land was
irrigated land fetching higher value. It is material
to note that the neither the S.L.A.O. nor any
witness authorised on his behalf stepped into
witness box. Neither any document or material
used by the S.LAO. while determining the value of
the acquired property is produced on record. There
is no plausible explanation from the respondents
side so as to hold that the sale transaction at higher
rates made discarded by the SLAO. and why he
fixed marked price of land at lower rate within Rs
1200/- of Rs. 1037/- is mentioned in the award.
On the other hand, the petitioners counsel placed
reliance upon case of Kantaben Manibhai Amin and
another Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Baroada, AIR. 1990 Supreme Court 103. In which
it was observed awarding 25 per cent excess
                               5
                                                16 FA 684 OF 2006


      compensation over and above market value of the
      Jirayat land, was just and proper. In the present
      case the petitioners produced cogent evidence in
      order to show that the land was irrigated land,
      fetching higher value than the dry land, so Rs.
      870/- per Are was very less and meagre price paid
      by the S.L.A.O.”


11.   From the text of paragraph No.13 of the impugned

judgment and award, it is clear that the Reference Court has

considered the appellants’ land as fully irrigated land. In view

of this, certainly there is no reason as to why the appellants

should not be granted compensation holding their land as an

irrigated land.

12.   Now, the next question is of the market price or the

appropriate price to fix the compensation. The record reveals

that the appellants relied upon two sale instances i.e. Exhibits

21 and 22. Exhibit 21 sale deed is executed on 16.09.2002

while Exhibit 22 sale deed is dated 22.04.2003. Obviously,

these are prior to the notification under Section 4(1) of the

Act. The average consideration recorded in the cited sale

instances is Rs.2886/- per R, which is rightly observed by the

Trial Court. However, for the reasons recorded at paragraph

No.16, the Trial Court fixed the value of appellants’ land at

half of the average sale consideration i.e. Rs.1443/-. The text
                               6
                                                    16 FA 684 OF 2006

of paragraph No.16 is reproduced as follows for the sake of

convenience:


      “16] it is pertinent to note that, the lands
      referred under sale deeds vide exh. 21 and 22
      were irrigated lands and P.W. 3 Ram also
      admitted in the cross-examination that the land
      was purchased by Sanjay Gade was seasonally
      irrigated and having river to its eastern side.
      The sale deed vide exh. 21 shows the purchaser
      was having his previous land to the northern
      side of the purchased land so for the purpose of
      beneficial     and     convenient      cultivation
      purchasers might have been paid more prices
      while purchasing the lands referred in both the
      sale deeds. It also requires to note that the sale
      portions of land from survey No. 74 and 178
      are shown to be done. On the other hand the
      petitioners land survey no. 213 might be far
      away from those lands. For all these reasons it
      becomes necessary to reduce sale prices shown
      in the sale deeds proportionately. Average price
      of Rs 2886/- can be reduced at least by 50/-
      which comes to Rs. 1443/-.”

13.   Apparently, the sale instances are from the same village

where appellants’ land is situated. The Reference Court had

no doubt on the authenticity and applicability of those sale

instances   for   citing   themselves   for   the     purpose     of

enhancement in the compensation in the case in hand.

However, merely for a single-line assumption that the

appellants’ land might be far away from the subject matter
                                 7
                                                 16 FA 684 OF 2006

land in the sale instances Exhibits 21 and 22, the Reference

Court held that the appellants would be entitled for

compensation at half rate of the average price of these two

sale instances.

14.   I do not comprehend with this logic applied by the

Reference Court. It has to be borne in mind that the

compensation scheme under the Land Acquisition Act is a

piece of beneficial legislation. Once having accepted the sale

instances to be applicable and comparable for the purpose of

assessment of adequate compensation, the Reference Court is

not justified, for any other reason, to reduce such rate while

granting enhancement to the present appellants.

15.   To sum up, (i) the Reference Court has considered

appellants’ land as an irrigated agricultural land; (ii) the sale

instances Exhibits 21 and 22 are held to be applicable for

fixing enhancement for the present case; and (iii) there is no

otherwise objection as regards the applicability of those two

sale instances for enhancement in the case in hand. In view of

this, the findings recorded by the Reference Court certainly do

call for interference of this Court.
                                   8
                                                      16 FA 684 OF 2006

16.      For the reasons recorded above, I pass the following

order:

                             ORDER

      I.      The First Appeal is allowed.

      II.     The     appellants   shall   be    entitled   to
      compensation at the rate of Rs.2886/- per R for
      the acquired land.

      III.    The acquiring body shall deposit the
      enhanced compensation before this Court within
      a period of six months from today, together with
      accrued interest thereon.

      IV.     The interest part shall be governed by the
      law laid down by the Full Bench judgment in the
      case of State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva
      Rangari, reported in 2016 (4) ALL MR 513.

      V.      The appellants shall not be entitled to
      interest and statutory benefits for the delayed
      period.

      VI.     The     appellants   shall   be    entitled   to
      withdraw the amount deposited with interest,
      without making any separate application for
      withdrawal.

      VII.    While       depositing       the     enhanced
      compensation, any amount already deposited
      shall be adjusted.
                                9
                                                  16 FA 684 OF 2006

      VIII. The appellants shall pay the requisite
      additional     court   fees    on   the   enhanced
      compensation, if applicable.

      IX.   Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand
      disposed of.



                                    ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )
PRW