Bombay High Court
REWANNATH PUNJAJI BHUKANversusTHE STATE OF MAH
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The market value of the acquired dry/jirayat lands is Rs.275 per R, leading to an enhancement of compensation.
Summary
The claimants' lands in Alhanwadi were acquired for a percolation tank and the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs.120 per R. Dissatisfied, they sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Reference Court relied on a sale of 40 R of land in the adjoining village of Deolali (Exhibit 60) and applied a 50% deduction, fixing a market value of Rs.187.50 per R. The appellants argued that a sale of 20 R in the same village (Exhibit 53) should also be considered, and after a similar 50% deduction the value would be Rs.275 per R. The High Court held that the size of the transaction is not fatal and that the same‑village sale is relevant, applying the same deduction to arrive at Rs.275 per R. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed, the compensation was enhanced to Rs.275 per R with all statutory benefits, and the original awards were modified accordingly.
Issues considered
- Whether the sale instance at Exhibit 53, despite involving a smaller area, should be considered for determining market value of the acquired lands.
- Whether a 50% deduction is appropriate when comparing irrigated/bagayat land sales to dry/jirayat land acquisition.
- What is the correct market value per R for the acquired dry/jirayat lands under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894?
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 11, 18, 28, 34, 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation enhancement
- market value determination
- Section 18
- dry land
- jirayat land
- percolation tank
- appellate court
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:43281
1-FA-761-2005.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
1 FIRST APPEAL NO. 761 OF 2005
Rewannath Punjaji Bhukan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 762 OF 2005
Shridhar Punjaji Bhukan
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 763 OF 2005
Harishchandra Kondiba Pawar
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra And Another
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 764 OF 2005
Mohan Shankar Bhukan (Deceased)
Through L.Rs. Kisnabai W/o. Mohan Bhukan and Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 765 OF 2005
Uttam Shankar Bhukan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 766 OF 2005
Maruti Ganpati Bhukan (Deceased)
Through L.Rs. Gayabai W/o. Maruti Bhukan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra and Another
1-FA-761-2005.odt
2
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 767 OF 2005
Pandurag Punaji Bhukan (Deceased)
Through L.Rs. Ramesh Pandurang Bhukan
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra and others
……
Mr. S.L. Bhapkar, Advocate for Appellants-Claimants
Mr. S.S. Dande, AGP for Respondent-State
……
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 16 SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. These appeals, filed by the claimants, take exception to the common
Judgments and Awards dated 21.03.2005 passed by the learned Joint Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.166
of 1994, 167 of 1994, 165 of 1994, 156 of 1994, 161 of 1994, 163 of 1994
and 162 of 1994. By the impugned Judgments and Awards, the learned
Reference Court partly allowed the references under Section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 and enhanced the compensation along with statutory
benefits. The claimants have therefore filed these appeals seeking further
enhancement.
3. The lands belonging to the respective claimants, situated at village
Alhanwadi, Taluka Pathardi, District Ahmednagar, were acquired for
construction of a Percolation Tank. The particulars of the acquired lands are
as follows:
1-FA-761-2005.odt
3
Sr. No. L.A.R. No. Gat No. Area Acquired
1. 166/1994 407 1 H 15 R
2. 167/1994 404 63 R
3. 165/1994 410 02 R & 19 R
4. 156/1994 410 50 R
5. 161/1994 410 1 H 04 R
6. 163/1994 399 1 H 13 R
7. 162/1994 406 1 H 15 R
4. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(for short, "the Act") was published on 03.11.1988. Thereafter, the Special
Land Acquisition Officer (for short, "the SLAO") passed an Award under
Section 11 of the Act on 31.08.1991. The SLAO determined the
compensation for the acquired jirayat lands at the rate of Rs.120/- per R.
The claimants, being dissatisfied with the market value determined by the
SLAO, accepted the compensation under protest and sought reference under
Section 18 of the Act for determination of the proper market value.
Accordingly, the references were made to the learned Reference Court.
5. Before the learned Reference Court, the claimants relied upon sale
instances at Exhibits 53 and 60. According to the claimants, the acquired
lands were irrigated lands and the market value determined by the SLAO
was inadequate. The sale instance at Exhibit 53 related to land situated in
the same village, Alhanwadi, whereby 20 R of land was sold for Rs.11,000/-.
The learned Reference Court did not accept the said sale instance on the
ground that the area involved therein was small. The learned Reference
Court principally relied upon the sale instance at Exhibit 60, which related
1-FA-761-2005.odt
4
to land situated at village Deolali, an adjoining village. Under the said
transaction, 40 R of bagayat land was sold for Rs.15,000/-. After applying
an overall deduction of 50%, the learned Reference Court determined the
market value of the acquired jirayat land at Rs.7,500/- per Acre, equivalent
to Rs.187.50/- per R, along with statutory benefits.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that the
learned Reference Court committed an error in discarding the sale instance
at Exhibit 53. He submits that the said transaction is from the very same
village, namely Alhanwadi, where the acquired lands are situated. According
to him, the area involved in the transaction was 20 R and could not have
been discarded merely on the ground that it was a small area. He further
submits that the sale instance at Exhibit 60 is from an adjoining village and
relates to bagayat land, whereas the sale instance at Exhibit 53 relates to
land in the same village and, therefore, has greater evidentiary value for
determining the market value of the acquired lands. Learned counsel
submits that the sale instance at Exhibit 53 shows a consideration of
Rs.11,000/- for 20 R, which works out to Rs.550/- per R. He submits that
even after making a suitable deduction on account of the nature of the
acquired land, the claimants would be entitled to a rate higher than that
awarded by the learned Reference Court. He therefore seeks further
enhancement.
1-FA-761-2005.odt
5
7. Per contra, learned AGP appearing for the respondent-State supports
the impugned Judgments and Awards. He submits that the learned
Reference Court rightly discarded the sale instance at Exhibit 53, as the
transaction involved only 20 R and was therefore not comparable with the
substantially larger areas acquired in the present matters. He submits that
the learned Reference Court rightly relied upon Exhibit 60, which related to
40 R of land in an adjoining village. He further submits that the land under
Exhibit 60 was bagayat land, whereas the acquired lands are jirayat/dry
lands. Therefore, according to him, the deduction of 50% made by the
learned Reference Court was justified. He submits that no further
enhancement is warranted.
8. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel
for the respective parties. With their assistance, I have gone through the
record and proceedings and the impugned Judgments and Awards.
9. There is no dispute that the claimants relied upon two sale instances,
namely Exhibits 53 and 60. Exhibit 60 relates to land situated at village
Deolali, an adjoining village. Exhibit 53, on the other hand, relates to land
situated in the same village, i.e. Alhanwadi, where the lands of the
claimants are situated.The transaction at Exhibit 53 involved 20 R of land
for a consideration of Rs.11,000/-. The said transaction also included rights
in water. Thus, the transaction can be considered as one relating to
irrigated/bagayat land.
1-FA-761-2005.odt
6
10. The learned Reference Court discarded the sale instance at Exhibit
53 mainly on the ground that the area involved in the transaction was small.
However, merely because the area covered by a sale instance is smaller than
the acquired land, the transaction cannot be discarded altogether if it
otherwise provides relevant evidence of the market value. The fact that the
transaction is from the same village where the acquired lands are situated is
a relevant circumstance to be taken into consideration.
11. Under the sale instance at Exhibit 53, 20 R of land was sold for
Rs.11,000/-. The rate therefore works out to Rs.550/- per R. However, the
transaction relates to irrigated/bagayat land, whereas the acquired lands are
jirayat/dry lands. Therefore, an appropriate deduction is required to be
made on account of the difference in the nature of the lands.
12. The learned Reference Court had adopted a deduction of 50% while
considering the sale instance at Exhibit 60, which related to bagayat land,
for determining the value of the jirayat lands. Having regard to the nature of
the lands involved in the present appeals and the difference between the
sale instance and the acquired lands, deduction of 50% can also be applied
to the rate reflected by Exhibit 53. Accordingly, the calculation would be as
follows:
1-FA-761-2005.odt
7
Particulars Calculation Rate
Sale consideration — Rs.11,000/-
Area sold — 20 R
Rate per R Rs.11,000 ÷ 20 Rs.550/- per R
Deduction towards
50% of Rs.550/- Rs.275/-
dry/jirayat nature
Rate for acquired
Rs.550/- − (less) Rs.275/- Rs.275/- per R
jirayat land
13. The rate of Rs.275/- per R so arrived at is higher than the rate of
Rs.187.50/- per R determined by the learned Reference Court on the basis of
Exhibit 60. Exhibit 53 is from the same village as the acquired lands,
whereas Exhibit 60 is from an adjoining village. In these circumstances,
Exhibit 53 provides relevant evidence for determining the market value of
the acquired lands.
14. In view of the above discussion, the market value of the acquired
jirayat/dry lands can be determined at Rs.275/- per R. The claimants would
consequently be entitled to enhancement of compensation at the said rate,
together with consequential statutory benefits in accordance with law.
15. In view of the above discussion, the appeals deserve to be partly
allowed. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
(i) The First Appeals are partly allowed.
1-FA-761-2005.odt
8
(ii) The impugned Judgments and Awards dated 21.03.2005 passed by
the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, in Land
Acquisition Reference Nos.166/1994, 167/1994, 165/1994, 156/1994,
161/1994, 163/1994 and 162/1994 are modified.
(iii) The market value of the acquired dry/jirayat lands is enhanced from
Rs.187.50/- per R to Rs.275/- per R.
(iv) The claimants shall be entitled to all consequential statutory benefits
on the enhanced compensation in accordance with the provisions of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
(v) The claimants shall be entitled to interest under Sections 28 and 34
of the Act, strictly in accordance with the Full Bench decision in State of
Maharashtra Vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457.
(vi) Save and except the above modification in the quantum of
compensation, the impugned Judgments and Awards dated 21.03.2005
passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, in the
above referred Land Acquisition References shall remain unaltered.
(vii) The claimants shall pay the requisite deficit court fees, if any, on the
enhanced compensation.
(viii) Modified award be drawn accordingly.
(ix) Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
S P Rane
Checking your session…