Bombay High Court
STATE OF MAHAversusSHANTABAI KISAN
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANJAY A DESHMUKH
Holding
The Reference Court's award of Rs.3,70,000 per hectare and the tree compensation amounts are reasonable and not perverse, so the appeals are dismissed.
Summary
The State Government appealed ten separate land acquisition awards where the Special Land Acquisition Officer had fixed compensation for agricultural lands acquired for a minor irrigation tank project. The Reference Court had enhanced the compensation to Rs.3,70,000 per hectare and awarded specific amounts for mango, jujube and tamarind trees based on expert horticulture reports. The State argued that the awards were excessive and that the court failed to consider the nature of the land and the lack of 7/12 extracts. The respondents contended that the court properly evaluated the sale exemplar, market value of the land and the fruit‑bearing capacity of the trees, and that no perversity existed. The High Court examined the evidence, found the sale exemplar genuine, accepted the horticulture expert’s valuation, and held that the compensation was reasonable. Consequently, the Court dismissed all the appeals and confirmed the awards.
Issues considered
- Whether the Reference Court erred in enhancing compensation to Rs.3,70,000 per hectare for the acquired agricultural land
- Whether the expert horticulture report on tree valuation was properly considered
- Whether the sale exemplar and lack of 7/12 extracts affect the validity of the compensation award
- Whether the awarded compensation amounts are perverse or illegal
Subjects
- Land acquisition
- Compensation
- Market value
- Expert report
- Tree valuation
- Appeal
- Reference court
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:3063
945 FA NO. 689 OF 2003 +++.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
945 FIRST APPEAL NO. 689 OF 2003
1. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(MIW), Jalgaon
2. The Executive Engineer,
(MIW), Jalgaon ..Appellants
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
Vasant Gopal Bhoite
Age: major, Occu: Agri.
R/o Kalamsara,
Ta;. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon ...Respondent
(Orig. Petitioner)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 687 OF 2003
1. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(MIW), Jalgaon
2. The Executive Engineer,
(MIW), Jalgaon ..Appellants
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
Ganpat Ramkrishna
Age: major, Occu: Agri.
R/o Kalamsara,
Ta;. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon ...Respondent
(Orig. Petitioner)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 688 OF 2003
1. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(MIW), Jalgaon
2. The Executive Engineer,
(MIW), Jalgaon ..Appellants
(Orig. Respondents)
1 of 9
(( 2 )) 945 FA NO. 689 OF 2003 +++
VERSUS
Sakharam Jivan Bhoi,
Age: major, Occu: Agri.
R/o Kalamsara,
Ta;. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon ...Respondent
(Orig. Petitioner)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 683 OF 2003
1. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(MIW), Jalgaon
2. The Executive Engineer,
(MIW), Jalgaon ..Appellants
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
Purshottam Kadu Chaudhari
Age: major, Occu: Agri.
R/o Kalamsara, for himself
and S.P.A. of Bhagwan Kadu
Chaudhari, Occu: Agri.,
R/o. Kalamsara,
Ta;. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon ...Respondent
(Orig. Petitioner)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 684 OF 2003
1. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(MIW), Jalgaon
2. The Executive Engineer,
(MIW), Jalgaon ..Appellants
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
Shriram Kadu Chaudhari
Age: major, Occu: Agri.
R/o Kalamsara,
Ta;. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon ...Respondent
(Orig. Petitioner)
2 of 9
(( 3 )) 945 FA NO. 689 OF 2003 +++
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 698 OF 2003
1. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(MIW), Jalgaon
2. The Executive Engineer,
(MIW), Jalgaon ..Appellants
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
Smt. Dropadabai Kadu Chaudhari,
Age: major, Occu: Agri.
R/o Kalamsara,
Ta;. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon ...Respondent
(Orig. Petitioner)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 690 OF 2003
1. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(MIW), Jalgaon
2. The Executive Engineer,
(MIW), Jalgaon ..Appellants
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
Ramkrishna Mahipat,
Age: major, Occu: Agri.
R/o Kalamsara,
Ta;. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon ...Respondent
(Orig. Petitioner)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 694 OF 2003
1. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(MIW), Jalgaon
3 of 9
(( 4 )) 945 FA NO. 689 OF 2003 +++
2. The Executive Engineer,
(MIW), Jalgaon ..Appellants
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
Shantabai Kisan,
Age: major, Occu: Agri.
R/o Kalamsara,
Ta;. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon ...Respondent
(Orig. Petitioner)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 695 OF 2003
1. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(MIW), Jalgaon
2. The Executive Engineer,
(MIW), Jalgaon ..Appellants
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
Bhausaheb Panditrao Bhoite,
Age: major, Occu: Agri.
R/o Kalamsara,
Ta;. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon ...Respondent
(Orig. Petitioner)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 699 OF 2003
1. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
(MIW), Jalgaon
2. The Executive Engineer,
(MIW), Jalgaon ..Appellants
(Orig. Respondents)
VERSUS
Nathu Panditrao Bhoite
Age: major, Occu: Agri.
R/o Kalamsara,
Ta;. Pachora, Dist. Jalgaon ...Respondent
(Orig. Petitioner)
4 of 9
(( 5 )) 945 FA NO. 689 OF 2003 +++
…
Mr. D. J. Patil, AGP for Appellants/State in all appeals
Mr. S. V. Dixit h/for Mr. V. J. Dixit, Advocate for Respondents in all
appeals
….
CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 17.01.2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. These Appeals have been preferred by the State
Government against the impugned judgments and awards passed in
the Land Acquisition References, as given in the chart below.
Sr. First Appeal L.A.R. Name of Land S.L.A.O. Reference
No Nos. Nos. parties acquired Rate per Court rate
Hectare per
Hectare
1 FA/687/2003 17/2002 State of 60 R 47,000/- 3,70,000/-
Mah. Vs.
Ganpat
2 FA/688/2003 12/2002 State of 2 H 15 R 59,000/- 3,70,000/-
Mah Vs.
Sakharam
Bhoi
3 FA/689/2003 10/2002 State of 1 H 62 R 50,000/- 3,70,000/-
Mah. Vasant
Bohite
4 FA/699/2003 16/2002 State Of 50 R 60,000/- 3,70,000/-
Mah. Vs.
Nathi
Bhoite
5 FA/690/2003 8/2002 State of 10 R 53,000/- 3,70,000/-
Mah. Vs.
Ramkisan
Mahipat
6 FA/694/2003 5/2002 State of 3 H 19 R 50,000/- 3,70,000/-
Mah. Vs.
Shantabai
5 of 9
(( 6 )) 945 FA NO. 689 OF 2003 +++
7 FA/695/2003 14/2002 State of 1 H 05 R 50,000/- 3,70,000/-
Mah. Vs.
Bhausaheb
Bhoite
8 FA/683/2003 04/2002 State of 14 R 53,000/- 3,70,000/-
Mah VS.
Purshottam
Chaudhari
9 FA/684/2003 18/2002 State of 11 R 53,000/- 3,70,000/-
Mah. Vs.
Sriram
Chaudhari
10 FA/698/2003 13/2002 State of 10 R 53,000/- 3,70,000/-
Mah. Vs.
Dropatibai
Chaudhari
2. The learned AGP for the appellants-State pointed out the
pleadings, the evidence, the grounds of objections in the appeals, and
the reasons and findings of the learned Reference Court. He
submitted that the agricultural lands of the claimants were acquired
by the State Government for the Project of Minor Irrigation Tank at
Kalamsara. He further submitted that the Special Land Acquisition
Officer awarded compensation as shown in the above chart.
However, the learned Reference Court enhanced the amount of
compensation and awarded compensation @ Rs.3,70,000/- per
hectare. He submitted that the learned Reference Court awarded an
excessive amount of compensation without properly considering the
evidence on record.
6 of 9
(( 7 )) 945 FA NO. 689 OF 2003 +++
3. He further submitted that the report submitted by the
Horticulture Department was wrongly appreciated and that the
nature of the land, including potkharab land, was not considered by
the learned Reference Court. Even though the 7/12 extracts were not
produced on record, a huge amount of compensation was awarded.
He prayed to allow the appeals by setting aside the impugned
judgments and awards.
4. The learned advocate for the respondents-claimants
strongly objected the appeals and submitted that the claimants had
proved their case for enhancement of compensation. He further
submitted that the learned Reference Court considered the entire
evidence on record and awarded a reasonable amount of
compensation as per the market value of the acquired land as well as
mango trees, jujube trees, and tamarind trees etc. He therefore
submitted that unless any perversity is shown, the impugned
judgments and awards cannot be set aside. He prayed to dismiss the
appeals.
5. Perused the Record and Proceedings, particularly the
evidence, the grounds of objections in the appeals, and the reasons
7 of 9
(( 8 )) 945 FA NO. 689 OF 2003 +++
and findings of the learned Reference Court. The learned Reference
Court considered the sale exemplar and held that it was genuine, as it
was executed prior to the acquisition of land. The sale exemplar
pertained to land admeasuring 81 Are and was sold for a
consideration of Rs.1,50,000/-. The lands of the claimants were
irrigated lands. The learned Reference Court considered the quality
of the land and accordingly awarded a reasonable amount of
compensation @ Rs.3,70,000/- per hectare.
6. As far as the trees are concerned, in paragraph No.15 of the
impugned judgment, the learned Reference Court considered the
report of the experts from the Horticulture Department, who visited
the field and found four jujube trees in block No.47, two mango trees
in block No.46/2, five mango trees in Block No.37, nine jujube trees
in Block No.47, two tamarind tree, one mango tree and two jujube
trees in Block No.52. The learned Reference Court considered the
fruit bearing capacity of the said trees along with their seasonable
income, accepted the expert report and awarded reasonable amount
of compensation i.e., Rs.25,000/- for per mango trees, Rs.8,000/- for
per jujube trees, Rs. 20,000/- for per tamarind trees. The
compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court is found to be
8 of 9
(( 9 )) 945 FA NO. 689 OF 2003 +++
reasonable as per the market rate. The evidence of the witnesses has
been properly appreciated and there is no perversity or illegality in
the impugned judgments and awards. Therefore, the award deserves
to be confirmed and no interference is warranted in it. Hence, the
following order:
::ORDER::
i. The first appeals are dismissed.
ii. Pending civil applications, if any, stand disposed of.
iii. No order as to costs.
[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]
HRJadhav
9 of 9
Checking your session…