Bombay High Court
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANRversusSHIVUBAI PANDURANG TALORE AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- ABHAY AHUJA
Holding
The First Appeal is dismissed, affirming the compensation award and disallowing interference.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed a civil application seeking dismissal of a compensation claim after the appellants deposited and the respondents withdrew the amounts. The court considered a prior decision (First Appeal No. 737 of 2012) where the reference court awarded only a 25% uplift over the sale‑deed valuation, despite a Section 4 notification. Relying on that precedent, the judge examined the present case where the SLAO had fixed compensation at Rs 68,000 per hectare and the sale deed dated 30 December 2000 was after the Section 4 notification of 24 February 2000. The court held that the proximity of the sale deed to the notification could be considered but was not a sole basis for a higher market value, and the enhancement was not excessive. Consequently, there was no ground for interference, and the First Appeal was dismissed. The civil application was also dismissed and any undertaking by the respondents was discharged.
Issues considered
- Whether the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition framework can be enhanced beyond the sale‑deed valuation based on a Section 4 notification.
- Whether the appellate court should interfere with the reference court’s award of a 25% uplift.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- valuation
- sale deed
- Section 4
- appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
23-FA-729-2012.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed
by KANCHAN
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
KANCHAN PRASHANT
DHURI
PRASHANT Date: FIRST APPEAL NO. 729 OF 2012
DHURI 2026.03.07
19:44:18
+0530
The State of Maharashtra and another … Appellants
Versus
Shivubai Pandurang Talore and others … Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1541 OF 2012
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 729 OF 2012
………...
Mr. A.R. Patil, Additional Government Pleader for the State.
Mr. Sandeep Shinde, Advocate for the Respondents No.2 and 3.
………...
CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J.
DATE : 4 MARCH 2026
P.C. :
1. When the matter is called out, Mr. Patil, learned Additional
Government Pleader, appears for the State and submits that the Civil
Application may be disposed of, in as much as the amounts had been
deposited by the Appellants and also withdrawn by the Respondents.
2. Mr. Shinde, learned Counsel, appearing for the Respondents
has no objection.
3. Mr. Patil further submits that the connected First Appeals
from the same common order have also been disposed of and tenders
Kanchan Dhuri 1/4
23-FA-729-2012.doc
across the bar order dated 26 th June 2013 of this Court (Coram : S.V.
Gangapurwala, as His Lordship then was) in First Appeal No.737 of
2012 with Civil Application No.1570 of 2012, submitting that in that
case, the Appeal had been dismissed, observing in paragraph 3 that the
reference Court had awarded only 25% more than the valuation shown
in the sale deed which sale deed was immediately after the notification
and the same could be considered for assessing the market value
considering the proximity of the sale deed after notification under
Section 4 also noting that the enhanced amount of compensation
would not be much.
4. Mr. Patil has submitted that the facts in the present case are
also similar and the First Appeal may be disposed of on similar lines.
5. Mr. Shinde, learned Counsel appears for the Respondents and
confirms that the order dated 26th June 2013 emanates out of the
common award from the order of SLAO and would be applicable to the
facts of this case.
6. It is observed from the order dated 26th June 2013 cited
above, that the SLAO had awarded compensation at the rate of
Rs.68,000/- per hectare and that the Reference Court had awarded
25% more than the valuation shown. It was observed that the
Kanchan Dhuri 2/4
23-FA-729-2012.doc
enhanced compensation therefore would not be much, the proximity of
the sale deed after the notification under Section 4 was also
considered. Since Mr. Patil has submitted that the facts in this case are
similar, I am of the view that a similar course of action needs to be
followed. In the facts of this case as well, Section 4 notification is of
24th February 2000 and the SLAO has awarded compensation at the
rate of Rs.68,000/- per hectare. The land acquired is also seasonally
irrigated and although the valuation of the said land would be 50%
more than jirayat land, the Reference Court has awarded only 25%
more than the valuation shown in the sale deed dated 30 th December
2000, which is of jirayat land and after the date of notification. I am
also of the view that just because the said instance is after the
notification under Section 4, the same cannot be the sole basis for
arriving at the compensation amount/market value, considering the
proximity of time of the sale deed after Section 4 notification, the same
can still be considered for assessing the market value. Even in the facts
of this case, it is not the case of the Appellant that the enhancement has
been shown as exorbitant. Accordingly, no case for interference is
made out.
7. The First Appeal stands dismissed.
Kanchan Dhuri 3/4
23-FA-729-2012.doc
8. In view of the above, the Civil Application No.1541 of 2012 to
stand dismissed.
9. The undertaking, if any, granted by the Respondents at the
time of withdrawing the money also to stand discharged.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)
Kanchan Dhuri 4/4
Checking your session…