Bombay High Court

TRIMBAK SHANKARNATH BUWA AND ORS.versusTHE SPL. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

Decided: 28 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The appeal is dismissed; the reference court’s enhancement to Rs 50 per square metre is upheld.

Summary

The appellants, Trimbak Shankarnath Buwa and others, appealed against the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nashik‑II, seeking a higher market price for land acquired for a maternity hospital. The reference court had enhanced the rate from Rs 20 to Rs 50 per square metre, awarding Rs 96,000, but the appellants argued for further enhancement using four comparable private sale deeds and earlier reference court rates, invoking proximity in time and location and the principle of escalation. The respondents contended that the reference court correctly rejected the distant sale comparables. The trial judge examined the evidence, noting that the land was reserved under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act and that the cited sale deeds were in different locations, making them unsuitable for comparison; the map alone was insufficient to establish proximity. The court held that the reference court had properly applied the escalation principle and had not erred in rejecting the comparables, and therefore dismissed the appeal. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the reference court’s award of Rs 50 per square metre intact.

Issues considered

Whether the reference court erred in rejecting private sale comparables on the ground of location difference
Whether the principle of escalation requires a higher market price than the Rs 50 per square metre awarded
Whether proximity in time and location of comparable sales can be invoked for further enhancement

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act

Subjects

land acquisition
market price determination
escalation principle
comparable sales
proximity in time
reservation
special land acquisition officer

Judgment

LSP 1 906 fa 787.98.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

First Appeal No. 787 of 1998

Shri Trimbak Shankarnath Buwa and
others … Appellants

v/s.

The Special Land Acquisiton Officer,
Nashik-II, Nashik. … Respondents

Mr. Anil Ahuja (through v.c.) Advocate for the Appellants.
a/w. Mrs. Bhavna Khemani
Mr. A.R. Patil AGP for the State.

CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J

DATE : 28th August 2026.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Advocate Shri Ahuja for the Appellants-
Claimants and learned AGP.
Digitally
signed by
LATA SUNIL
LATA PANJWANI
SUNIL Date:
PANJWANI 2026.09.01
11:57:54
+0530 2. The Reference Court as per the Award dated 17 th November
1993 in L.R. No.181/1987 has granted Rs.96,000/- by way of
additional market price. The rate granted by Special Land
Acquisition Officer was Rs.20/- per sq. meter. The Reference Court
enhanced it to Rs.50/- per sq. meter. The Claimants being aggrieved
by this enhancement has filed present appeal for further
enhancement.
LSP 2 906 fa 787.98.doc

3. With their assistance when I have gone through the record, I
find the Appellants have relied upon 4 instances. They are as follows:

(i) The sale deed in respect of Survey No.137-B executed in
November 1980 for Rs.47,500/-. PW No.3 Kantilal Gandhi
has deposed to prove this sale deed. The rate calculation per
sq. meter approximately comes to 67.33.

(ii) The sale deed in respect of Survey No.280 for Rs.49,500/-
and it is dated 1st April 1981. Witness No.2 Sharadbhai
Shantilal Patel is examined to prove this sale deed.

(iii) The rate fixed by the Reference Court in Land Reference
No.92/84 and 93/84 in respect of Survey no.232. The date
of notification under Section 4 is dated 22 nd February 1973.
The rate awarded is Rs.30 per sq. meter. According to Mr.
Ahuja this notification cannot be considered proximity in
time. He relied upon the observations in case of Chimanlal
Hargovindas v/s. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona 1
wherein the Supreme Court has laid down the consideration
while considering comparable instances. Two of them are
proximity in time angle and proximity from situation angle.

(iv) The rate fixed by the Reference Court at Rs.55 sq. meter in
respect of Survey No.244/2-C/3 in L.R. No.147/82. The date

1 1988 AIR Supreme Court 1652
LSP 3 906 fa 787.98.doc

of notification is 16th June 1977. The rate fixed by Special
Land Acquisition Officer was Rs.28 per sq. meter. According
to Mr. Ahuja this rate can certainly be considered and by
applying the principle of escalation in this case, the rate atleast
can be enhanced to Rs.65/- per sq. meter.

4. Mr. Ahuja submitted that the land was reserved as per the
provisions of Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act and it was
difficult for his client to place reliance on the sale instances of the
land situated in the immediate vicinity because there is a prohibition
for sale of land because they were under reservation. In such an
eventuality it is his submission that the Reference Court ought to
have considered the 4 instances relied upon by the claimants.

5. Additionally, he relied upon the observations in case of
Manohar and others v/s. State of Maharashtra and others 2
According to him amongst the comparable instances the higher rate
needs to be considered. He also placed reliance on observations in
The General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v/s.
Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and anr.3 which records there has to be
7.5% per annum escalation. It is for the reason if the lands are
situated in rural areas, there is less scope for development.

6. Learned AGP after going through the judgment has supported
it and submitted that there is no scope for interference. According to

2 2025 (5) AIR Bom 178
3 2008(6) ALL MR 491
LSP 4 906 fa 787.98.doc

him the Reference Court was right in rejecting two private sale
instances because even though the rates fixed by private sale
voluntary was on higher side, those lands were situated at a different
location and considering the location they have fetched a rate higher
than the rate fixed by the Reference Court.

7. On this background I have gone through the evidence. It is
true the Claimant Trimbak has given the oral evidence so also he has
examined two witnesses to prove the sale deed. The land comprising
Survey No.251 at Village Develali, Taluka and District Nashik was
reserved as per the sanctioned development plan vide notification
dated 18th August 1972. The notification was published in the
official gazette on 26th February 1981 and the Award was declared on
23rd September 1986 whereas possession was taken on 29th October
1983. The purpose of acquisition was construction of maternity
hospital by Nashik Municipal Council.

8. The Reference Court has refused to consider two private
voluntary sale because their location is different. In Para No.10 of
the judgment, the Reference Court has observed that Survey No.280
is situated at far away distance from Survey No.251. That is the land
under acquisition. Survey No.280 is situated by the side of the road
which goes from Nashik town to Nashik road whereas in respect of
voluntary sale for Survey No.137-B, the Reference Court observed
that it is situated to the northern side of the Nashik road railway
station. About this finding about a different location from the map,
LSP 5 906 fa 787.98.doc

it was not pointed out on behalf of the Appellant that these findings
are erroneous. So I am unable to disturb those findings.

9. Coming to the Awards declared by the Reference Court in two
references, the Reference Court in Land Reference No.147 of 1982
has enhanced the rate of Rs.55/- per sq. meter. It is in respect of
Survey No.244/2-C/3. From Rs.28/- per sq. meter, the Reference
Court has enhanced it to Rs.55/- The Reference Court has refused
to consider this rate because the land bearing Survey no.244/2-C/3 is
situated adjacent to main Gaothan land of Village Deolali.

10. Mr. Ahuja on the basis of map tried to convince me about the
similarity of location of that land and Survey No.251 which is under
acquisition. It is undisputed that this map is produced by the District
Government Pleader before the Reference Court. If one may have a
look at the map, we may find that both the lands are situated at a
near distance but map is always prepared as per the measure. By
simply looking at the map it is difficult to have a finding that they are
situated at the near distance. In fact oral evidence ought to have
been adduced to show that they are in the same locality.

11. Whereas in respect of the Land Reference No.92/84 and
93/84 in respect of Survey no.232 the rate awarded by the Reference
Court was Rs.30/- per sq. meter. The notification is dated 22 nd
February 1973. The Reference Court has considered those reasons
in Para No.13. In fact on the basis of the rate fixed at Rs.30/- in the
LSP 6 906 fa 787.98.doc

year 1973, the Reference Court by considering the principle of
escalation has enhanced the rate for the land in question from
Rs.30/- to Rs.50/- per sq. meter. There are observations in Para
No.14.

12. Considering the above discussion it can very well be said that
Reference Court was fully aware about the principle of escalation. It
cannot be said that the Reference Court has not considered the
instances quoted on behalf of the Appellants in improper way. So I
do not find any interference is required. The Appeal stands
dismissed.

(S.M. MODAK, J.)

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…