Bombay High Court
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORSversusPRAKASH ABASAHEB KHARAT AND ANR
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The reference court correctly determined the market value of the acquired land and the enhancement of compensation is upheld.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra acquired 30 R of land in Takle Pokhari village for a percolation tank, issuing a Section 4 notification in 2005. The Special Land Acquisition Officer initially awarded Rs 710 per R for dry land, but the reference court enhanced the compensation to Rs 3,000 per R, treating the land as seasonally irrigated and relying on a prior judgment (LAR No. 901/2010) from the same notification and village. The State appealed, contending that the enhancement was erroneous and that the earlier case was not binding precedent. The Court examined the record, noted that the earlier judgment, although not binding, was relevant for determining market value of similar land. It concluded that the reference court correctly applied the market value and that there was no ground to interfere. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit.
Issues considered
- Whether the reference court was justified in enhancing compensation to Rs 3,000 per R for seasonally irrigated land.
- Whether a non‑binding judgment from the same notification and village can be used to determine market value.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act — s. 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- market value
- reference court
- precedent
- seasonally irrigated land
- percolation tank
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:31941
FA 690/17
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
33 FIRST APPEAL NO. 690 OF 2017
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
VERSUS
PRAKASH ABASAHEB KHARAT AND ANR
...
AGP for Appellants/State : Mr. B.A. Shinde
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
Dated : July 27, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. Admit.
2. As the acquisition proceeding was initiated in the year 2005, heard
finally with the consent of learned counsel for respective parties.
3. By this appeal, the appellants/acquiring body is aggrieved by the
judgment and award dated 28.4.2015 passed by the learned 2 nd Jt. Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Jalna in LAR No. 577/2010, whereby the reference
court has enhanced the compensation.
4. The land of the claimant admeasuring 30 R. from Gat No. 15
situated at village Takle Pokhari, Taluka Mantha, District Jalna was acquired
by the State for construction of Takle Pokhari Percolation Tank No. 3 Taluka
Mantha. The notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was
published on 21.11.2005. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) has
declared award on 29.1.2008. The SLAO has granted compensation at the
rate of Rs. 710/- per R. for dry land and the same was enhanced by the
reference court by determining the market value of the acquired land at
the rate of Rs.3000/- per R. for seasonally irrigated land.
5. Mr. B.A. Shinde, learned AGP for the State submits that SLAO has
FA 690/17
2
granted proper compensation, but the reference court has enhanced the
same wrongly. He submits that the reference court has relied upon the
order passed in LAR No. 901/2010, arising out of the same notification and
from the same project and has granted compensation at the rate of
Rs.3000/- per R. for seasonally irrigated land.
6. In spite of service, none appeared for original claimants.
7. Having heard the learned AGP, with his assistance I have gone
through the record and proceedings and the impugned judgment and
award. On perusal of the record, it appears that after going through the
record, the SLAO has granted Rs.710/- per R. for acquired land. The
claimants have relied upon the judgment and award in LAR No. 901/2010,
arising out of the same notification and from the same village in which
market value of dry land was fixed at Rs.2000/- per R. and considering
that as the land involved in the present matter is seasonally irrigated land,
the reference court has granted compensation at the rate of Rs.3000/- per
R. Though the judgment and order in LAR No. 901/2010 is not binding
precedent, that can be used for determination of market value in the
present matter as it arises out of the same notification and in respect of
the lands from the same village and therefore, there is no reason to take
different view. Therefore, I hold that the reference court has rightly
determined the market value of the acquired land. I do not see any reason
to interfere in the impugned judgment and award. The appeal is devoid of
merits and the same is dismissed.
( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )
ssc/
Checking your session…