Bombay High Court
STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusVASUDEO TUKARAM PATIL
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANJAY A DESHMUKH
Holding
The reference court correctly determined the market value of the acquired land using the highest sale exemplar, and the appeals are dismissed.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the awards of compensation granted by the Land Reference Court in Amalner for three landowners whose properties were acquired for the Kurwel Distributary of the Hatnur Irrigation Project. The claimants were awarded Rs.1,311 per are for non‑irrigated land and Rs.2,622 per are for irrigated land based on the highest sale exemplar (Exhibit‑36) considered genuine and adjacent to the acquired plots. The State argued that the reference court failed to consider the entire evidence and that the market value was excessive, while the claimants contended that the court correctly applied the comparable sale method. The High Court examined the pleadings, evidence, and the reference court’s reasoning, finding that the use of the highest sale exemplar and the classification of land were proper. Consequently, the Court held there was no error in the reference court’s determination of market value and dismissed the appeals.
Issues considered
- Whether the Land Reference Court erred in assessing the market value of the acquired land by relying on the highest sale exemplar.
- Whether the compensation awarded to the claimants was excessive in view of the evidence on record.
- Whether the reference court properly considered the nature of the land (irrigated vs non‑irrigated) in fixing rates.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- market value
- reference court
- irrigated land
- non‑irrigated land
- sale exemplar
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:7254
906 FA NO. 693 OF 2003.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
906 FIRST APPEAL NO. 693 OF 2003
State Of Maharashtra
VERSUS
Vasudeo Tukaram Patil
...
Mr. S. B. Jadhav, AGP for Appellant-State
Mr. C. V. Borse h/for Mr. V. B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 691 OF 2003
State Of Maha
VERSUS
Vimalbai Nimba Koli
…
Mr. S. B. Jadhav, AGP for Appellant-State
Mr. C. V. Borse h/for Mr. V. B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 692 OF 2003
State Of Maha
VERSUS
Narayan Pralhad Patil
…
Mr. S. B. Jadhav, AGP for Appellant-State
Mr. C. V. Borse h/for Mr. V. B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent
CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 17.02.2026
ORDER :-
1. These appeals are preferred by the State Government
against the common judgment and award dated 03.05.2002
passed by the learned Land Reference Court Amalner, District
Jalgoan in L.A.R. Nos.286 of 1993, 290 of 1993 and 647 of 1993
respectively.
1 of 4
(( 2 )) 906 FA NO. 693 OF 2003
2. The following chart reflects all the material particulars of
the appeals.
First L.A.R. Block Area Compensation Compensation
Appeal Nos. No. awarded by LAO awarded by Reference
Nos. Court
FA/ 286/1993 120 77 Are 291/- per Are 2,622/- per Are for
693/20 irrigated land and
03 1,311/- per Are for
non-irrigated land
FA/ 290/1993 207 18 Are 291/- Per Are 2,622/- per Are for
691/20 irrigated land and
03 209 56 Are 1,311/- per Are for
non-irrigated land
FA/ 647/1993 117 75 Are 275/- per Are 2,622/- per Are for
692/20 irrigated land and
03 1,311/- per Are for
non-irrigated land
3. Learned AGP for the Appellant-State pointed out the
pleadings, the evidence, the grounds of objections of the appeals and
the reasons and findings of the learned Reference Court. He
submitted that the land of the claimants was acquired by the State
Government for the construction of the Kurwel Distributary of the
Hatnur Irrigation Project, Taluka Amalner, District Jalgaon. He
further submitted that the learned Reference Court failed to consider
the entire evidence on record and awarded an excessive amount of
compensation. He submitted that the market value of the acquired
land as on the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the
2 of 4
(( 3 )) 906 FA NO. 693 OF 2003
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 29.06.1989, is not based on the
evidence on record. Therefore, he prayed to allow the appeals by
setting aside the impugned judgment and award.
4. Learned advocate for the respondents–claimants strongly
opposed the appeals and submitted that the learned Reference Court
considered the highest sale exemplar at Exhibit-36 and awarded
compensation at the rate of Rs.1,311/- per Are for non-irrigated land
and Rs.2,622/- per Are for irrigated land. He further submitted that
the reasons and findings of the learned Reference Court are legal and
correct and no interference is warranted therein. He prayed to
dismiss the appeals.
5. Perused the pleadings, the evidence, the grounds of
objections raised in the appeals and the reasons and findings of the
learned Reference Court. The learned Reference Court, in paragraph
No.23, relied upon the sale exemplar at Exhibit-36, which is the sale
exemplar of the highest value, and held that it is genuine and
adjacent to the lands of the claimants while answering Issue No.1.
The nature of the land, whether irrigated or non-irrigated, was also
determined by the learned Reference Court on the basis of the 7/12
3 of 4
(( 4 )) 906 FA NO. 693 OF 2003
extracts. Thus, on the basis of a comparable sale exemplar, the
learned Reference Court has rightly determined the market value of
the acquired lands. Therefore, there is no scope for interference in the
impugned judgment and award. The appeals deserve to be dismissed.
Hence, the following order.
::ORDER::
a. The First Appeals are dismissed.
b. Pending civil applications, if any, are disposed of.
c. No order as to costs.
[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]
HRJadhav
4 of 4
Checking your session…