Bombay High Court

KELYA KALASHYA VALVIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Disposal: Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
Bench: SANJAY A DESHMUKH

Holding

Both appeals are allowed; the earlier awards are partly set aside and the appellants are awarded enhanced compensation for land, house, trees as per their schedules (with a 20% deduction) and Rs.3,60,000 each for loss of fishing business, together with solatium, interest and other statutory benefits.

Summary

The appellants, a group of Scheduled Tribe agriculturists and fishermen from villages in Nandurbar, challenged the compensation awarded for their lands acquired in 1980 for the Sardar Sarowar project. The original award of Rs.5,160 per hectare was enhanced by the Land Reference Court to Rs.6,450 per hectare using the capitalization method, but the claimants argued that this amount was inadequate, especially as it ignored the value of their houses, trees and loss of fishing income. The court examined the claimants' schedules, oral testimony of Rs.150 per day fishing earnings, and the absence of sale exemplars, and applied a 20% deduction for human error to the claimed amounts. It held that each claimant was entitled to the schedule‑based compensation for land, house and trees, plus Rs.3,60,000 as compensation for the fishing business, together with statutory solatium and interest. The judgment set aside the earlier awards in part and directed the acquiring authority to pay the enhanced amounts.

Issues considered

The adequacy of compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for agricultural land acquired for a public project
Whether the capitalization method and the multiplier applied by the Reference Court were appropriate
Whether loss of fishing livelihood is compensable and the quantum of such compensation
Whether the claimants' schedule of values can be accepted with a 20% deduction for human error
Whether statutory benefits such as solatium and interest are payable

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 — s. 36(2)

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation
capitalization method
scheduled tribes
fishing livelihood
solatium
interest
multiplier
valuation
project‑affected persons

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:21706

956-fa-787-2003+
-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

FIRST APPEAL NO. 787 OF 2003

1. Kelya Kalshya Valvi (Died)
Through his LRs.

1A. Sura Kelya Valvi
Age - 40 yrs. Occu. - Agril.

1B. Naresh Kelya Valvi
Age 36 yrs. Occu. - Agril.

1C. Pandya Kelya Valvi
Age-33 yrs. Occu. - Agril.

1D. Shankar Kelya Valvi
Age - 31 yrs. Occu. - Agril.

1E. Mithun Kelya Valvi
Age - 27 yrs. Occu. - Agril.

2. Jegla Sokna Valvi (died)
Through his LRs.

2A. Siga Jegla Valvi.
Age-50 yrs., Occu. - Agril.

2B. Nana Jegla Valvi
Age-50 yrs., Occu. - Agril

3. Gumna Seddada Valvi (Died)
Through his LRs.

3A. Fijya (Fojya) Gumna Valvi (Died)
Through his L.Rs.

3A1. Reshmabai Fojya (Fojya) Valvi (Died)
Through his L.Rs.

3A2. Sotya Fojya (Fojya) Valvi
Age: 60 years, Occu: Agril.
3A3. Wadya Fojya (Fojya) Valvi
Age: 54 years, Occu: Agril.
3B. Gardya Gumna Valvi (Died)
Through his L.Rs.
956-fa-787-2003+
-2-

3B1. Karma Gardya Valvi
Age: 50 years, Occu: Agril.

3B2. Saising Gardya Valvi
Age: 45 years, Occu: Agril.

3B3. Raising Gardya Valvi
Age: 40 years, Occu: Agril.

4. Jaijya@ Jatrya Sedada Valvi (Died)
Through his LRs.

4A. Ranchod Jatrya Valvi
Age: 60 yrs., Occu. - Agril

4B. Tukya Jatrya Valvi
Age-58 yrs., Occu. - Agril

4C. Kagda Jatrya Valvi
Age-60 yrs., Occu. - Agril

4D. Kalya Jatrya Valvi
Age-60 yrs., Occu. - Agril

5. Fijya (Fojya) Gumna Valvi (Died)

5A. Reshmabai Fojya (Fojya) Valvi (Died)
Through his L. Rs.

5B. Sotya Fojya (Fojya) Valvi
Age: 45 years, Occu: Agril.

5C. Wadya Fojya (Fojya) Valvi
Age: 49 years, Occu: Agril.

6. Gardya Gumna Valvi (Died)
Through his L.Rs.

6A. Karma Gardya Valvi
Age: 50 years, Occu: Agril.

6B. Saising Gardya Valvi
Age: 45 years, Occu: Agril.

6C. Raising Gardya Valvi
Age: 40 years, Occu: Agril.

Occu: Agriculturists and Labourers
956-fa-787-2003+
-3-

All R/o village Jambhurwada,
Tq. Waghodiya, Dist. Baroda.
Through the General Power of
Attorney Holder, Shri Saysing Gardya Valvi
…..APPELLANTS
(Orig. Claimants)
VERSUS

1. The State of Maharashtra
Through:

i. The Collector, Dhule.

ii. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Dhule.
…..RESPONDENTS

WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 942 OF 2003

1. Tukya Kutrya Bhil (died)
Through his LRs.

1A. Nanibai w/o. Tukya Bhil (Vasave),
Age-70 yrs. Occu. - Agril.

1B. Raja S/o Tukya Bhil (Vasave),
Age-50 yrs. Occu. - Agril

1C. Togya Tukya Bhil (Vasave),
Age-45 yrs. Occu. - Agril

1D. Ramji Tukya Bhil (Vasave),
Age-43 yrs. Occu. - Agril

1E. Dinesh Tukya Bhil (Vasave),
Age-39 yrs. Occu. - Agril

1F. Deepak Tukya Bhil (Vasave),
Age-35 yrs. Occu. - Agril

All R/o. Chimalkhedi, Tal. Akkalkuwa,
Dist. Nandurbar

2. Shera Resha Bhil,
Age: 60 years.
956-fa-787-2003+
-4-

3. Pacha s/o Reda Bhil (Died)
Through his LR's

3A. Bhamnya S/o Pacha Bhil (Vasave)
Age-50 yrs. Occu. - Agril.

3B. Damnya S/o Pacha Bhil (Vasave)
Age-47 yrs. Occu. - Agril

3C. Chamarya S/o Pacha Bhil (Vasave)
Age-43 yrs. Occu. - Agril

3D. Rupibai W/o Pacha Bhil (Vasave)
Age-68 yrs. Occu. - Agril

3E. Kerabai D/o Pacha Bhil (Vasave)
Age-35 yrs. Occu. - Agril

All R/o. Devmogra Punarvasan,
Tal. Akkalkuwa, Dist. Nandurbar

4. Bhongya Bidya Bhil,
Age: 75 years.

5. Gardya Bidya Bhil,
Age: 65 years.

6. Motya Rame Bhil,
Age: 55 years.

7. Signa S/o Babna Bhil (Vasave) Died
Through his LR's

7A. Navasaibai W/o Singa Vasave
Age - 68 yrs. Occu. - Agril

7B. Chanda S/o Singa Vasave
Age-45 yrs. Occu. - Agril

7C. Olya S/o Singa Vasave
Age-43 yrs. Occu. - Agril

7D. Khaalya S/o Singa Vasave
Age-40 yrs. Occu. - Agril

All R/o. Chimalkhedi, Tal. Akkalkuwa,
Dist. Nandurbar
956-fa-787-2003+
-5-

8. Radva Bhagla Bhil,
Age: 55 years.

9. Junabai Kutrya Bhil (Vasave)(Died)
Through his LRs.

9A. Nanibai w/o. Tukya Bhil (Vasave),
Age-70 yrs. Occu. - Agril.

9B. Raja S/o Tukya Bhil (Vasave),
Age-50 yrs. Occu. - Agril

9C. Togya Tukya Bhil (Vasave),
Age-45 yrs. Occu. - Agril

9D. Ramji Tukya Bhil (Vasave),
Age-43 yrs. Occu. - Agril

9E. Dinesh Tukya Bhil (Vasave),
Age-39 yrs. Occu. - Agril

9F. Deepak Tukya Bhil (Vasave),
Age-35 yrs. Occu. - Agril

All R/o. Chimalkhedi, Tal. Akkalkuwa,
Dist. Nandurbar

10. Utarnya Surtya Bhil,
Age: 55 years.

All are Agriculturists and Labourers and
all R/o village Chimarkhedi,
Dist. Nandurbar.

Through the General Power of
Attorney Holder, Shri Bijya Damjya Vasave.
…..APPELLANTS
(Orig. Claimants)
VERSUS

1. The State of Maharashtra
Through:

i. The Collector, Dhule.

ii. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Dhule.
…..RESPONDENTS
956-fa-787-2003+
-6-

_____________________________________________________________
Mr. D. M. Pingale, Advocate for Appellants
Mr. Virendra V. Jahagirdar, AGP for Respondent-State
_____________________________________________________________

CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATED : 27TH FEBRUARY, 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. Both these appeals are preferred against the judgment and

award passed by the learned Land Reference Court, Nandurbar as per

the following chart:

Sr. No. First Appeal No. L.A.R. No. Judgment date
1 787 of 2003 7 of 1998 31.12.1999
2 942 of 2003 3 of 1998 31.12.1999

2. Appellants’ agricultural lands were acquired for the purpose

of the Sardar Sarowar Project of village Mandwa and Chimarkhedi,

Tahsil Akkalkuwa, Dist. Nandurbar.

3. Learned Advocate for the appellants pointed out the

pleadings, the evidence, the grounds of objections in the appeal and

reasons and findings in the impugned judgment. The claimants’ lands

were acquired as per the notification issued and published under

Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 06.06.1980 and

13.12.1980 respectively. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an

award on 19.09.1986 and awarded Rs.5,160/- per hectare. The

learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation and awarded

Rs.6,450/- per hectare.
956-fa-787-2003+
-7-

4. Learned Advocate for the appellants/claimants pointed out

that the learned Reference Court has adopted the capitalized (actual

income basis) method for awarding compensation. Admittedly, there

were no sale exemplars at village, because all the appellants are

agriculturists belonging to Scheduled Tribe and sales are restricted

and prohibited under Section 36(2) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue

Code, 1966. Learned Reference Court has adopted the said method as

held in paragraph no.11 of the impugned judgment. He further

submitted that the claimants have lost their fishing business. Their

livelihood was depending upon the fishing business as well as on the

acquired agricultural lands. They have become project affected

persons and have got a meager amount of compensation. Therefore,

they are entitled for the reasonable amount of compensation as per

the market value of their acquired lands.

5. Learned Advocate for claimants pointed out the details of

each of the appellants’ lands as per schedule attached with the

application. The land Reference Application is in the form of schedule

showing the description of the land i.e. survey number, area and its

value. Further there is description of the hut cum house properties of

the claimants. As far as houses are concerned in that schedule, the

description of the house is that those were built in the teakwood

having tiles and walls. However, the price of the some of trees and
956-fa-787-2003+
-8-

hut is not stated. There is a description of the trees like Mahu, Mango,

Teakwood, Beer, etc.

6. Learned Advocate for the appellants/claimants therefore

submitted that the claimants are belonging from the weaker sections

of the society and they are entitled to the compensation as per their

schedule attached with the Land Reference Application. He submitted

that considering the nature of the hut cum house in respect of

claimants claim, they have not stated even price of their hut/house.

Therefore, this Court has to exercise judicial discretion in the interest

of justice. He lastly prayed to allow the appeals. He is relying upon

the following authorities:

i. Land Acquisition Officer (RDG) Nagarkurnool Vs. M.

Narayana, 1996 AIHC 1932, in which Hon’ble High Court held that in

case of capitalization method, application of multiplier could be 15.

ii. State of Maharashtra and Another Vs. Chandrakant @

Pomaji Vasudev Somshetti (since deceased by L.Rs.) and others, AIR

1991 Bombay 245, in which it is held that final award of Land

Acquisition Officer cannot be basis for determining the value and if

the acquiring authority is relying upon it, it must be proved as per the

provisions of law.

iii. Union of India and another Vs. Smt. Shanti Devi etc. etc.,

AIR 1983 SC 1190, wherein it is held that the proper multiplier would
956-fa-787-2003+
-9-

be 15 year’s purchase and not 20 year’s purchase for determining the

compensation on the basis of capitalization is necessary.

iv. Deputy Collector (L.A.) and L.A.O. Panaji and another Vs.

Joaquim Francis Fernandes (dead) represented by Domingo Jose

Crisanto Fernandes and others, 2011 (1) Mh.L.J. 69 , wherein it is

held that the onus lies on the respondent state to disprove the

evidence adduced by the claimant.

7. Learned AGP for the respondent-State submitted that there

is no cogent and reliable evidence to award the enhancement of

compensation to the claimants. The learned Reference Court awarded

reasonable amount of compensation as there is no evidence on record

for determining the compensation on the capitalization method. As far

as business of fishing is concerned, except the oral evidence of the

claimants, there is no documentary evidence available on record to

show that they were gaining something from the fishing. He pointed

out the reasons and findings of the learned Reference Court alongwith

the pleadings of the claimants. He submitted that there is no

substance in the grounds of objections of the appeals. He prayed to

dismiss the appeals. He is relying upon the following authorities:

i. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Davangere Vs. P.

Veerbhadrappa etc. etc. 1984 AIR SC 774 , wherein paragraph no.5

and 19 it is observed as under:
956-fa-787-2003+
-10-

5. In Basavarajappa's case, supra, a Division Bench of
the High Court while dealing with the determination of
compensation payable for similar agricultural lands in
the neighbourhood of the same two villages acquired at
or about the same time adopted the multiple of 12½
times the net annual profits for purposes of determining
the capitalized value thereof. In coming to that
conclusion the High Court observed:

"The rate of return from Government Security, which is
Gilt-edged Security was around 6% in the year 1971-
72. A person investing his capital in irrigated land
would expect a return of about 2% more than what he
obtains from Government Securities. That means, a
return of 8% would be the normal return expected by
an agriculturist investing in purchase of wet lands. If
8% was the return expected the number of years
purchase value comes to 12½
We regret to find that in these cases the High Court
instead of having adopted the multiple of 12½ times
observed that the decision in Basavarajappa's case,
supra, was not applicable because the lands acquired in
these cases were far superior for which there is no
rational basis. If the lands acquired were of a superior
quality, the actual or immediately prospective net
annual profits would be more and when multiplied by
the proper multiplier arrested a on the rate of return as
the relevant time i.e on the date of the notification
under Section 4(1) of the Act, the amount of
compensation for acquisition of such lands would
necessarily be more. The quality of the soil has no
relevance to the proper multiplier to be adopted in
determining the capitalised value.

19. As already stated, some 20 to 30 years back i.e. till
the early 50s, it was taken as a settled rule of practice,
that the capitalized value of agricultural lands should
be arrived at 20 years' purchase having regard to the
rate of interest on gilt-edged securities at five per cent.
That rule no longer can be adhered to in view of the
changed economic situation. In the early '70s people
believed that investment in housing was more secure
than other forms of Government securities in respect of
safety of investment. Investment, in housing involves
956-fa-787-2003+
-11-

certainly of labour and effort such as maintenance,
collection of rent payment of taxes et cetera. The rate of
return expected therefore was 1½ % to 24% more than
what was expected from gilt-edged securities. A person
investing his capital in agricultural lands would
ordinarily expect a return of 2% to 3% more than what
he could obtain from gilt-edged securities or other
forms of safe investment such as fixed deposits in
scheduled banks, National Savings Certificates, Unit
Trusts et cetera or on blue chips i.e. on stocks and
shares in the public or private sector which yield a
much greater return.

ii. Addl. Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Yamanappa

Basalingappa Chalwad, 1995(1) RRR 115.

iii. State of Gujarat and others Vs. Rama Rana and others, 1997

AIR SC 1845, wherein paragraph no. 5, court has to evaluate the

evidence objectively and dispassionately to reach finding or awarding

compensation and appropriate multiplier was 10 years settled by the

several judgments deducting 50% amount over the cultivation

expenses.

8. Nobody will dispute the ratio laid down in the above

authorities cited on behalf of both sides. Those are considered and

found useful to decide the issues in this case. However, it is well

settled that each case has to be decided on merits and facts of the case

are deceisive.

9. Perused the pleadings, the evidence, grounds of objections

and reasons and findings of the learned Reference Court, it show that
956-fa-787-2003+
-12-

the learned Reference Court applied capitalization method to award a

meager amount of compensation as there was no evidence of the sale

exemplar. It is admitted fact that the claimants belongs to Scheduled

Tribe, the weaker section of the society which is judicially noticeable

fact. They are illiterate agriculturists and fishermans. They were not

properly guided and no any valuer was appointed to determine the

value of their lands, trees and houses/huts. Therefore except their oral

evidence alongwith schedule attached with the application, there is no

any evidence on record. In the absence of evidence, the guess work is

permissible as per the settled law.

10. Considering all these aspects and the facts and

circumstances of the case, the claimants have stated value of their

properties in the Schedule form of pleadings. Admittedly, the entire

village of the claimants with their houses and the agricultural lands

are submerged in the said Sardar Sarowar project and they are totally

displaced and become project affected persons. They are Tribals and

weaker section of the society. If all these aspects are considered with

their dependency on the agricultural land and fishing business, they

are certainly entitled to the enhanced rate of compensation as per

their claim made in their application with 20% deduction which

would meet the ends of justice. The following chart shows that the

claimants have claimed said amount of compensation for their land,
956-fa-787-2003+
-13-

houses/huts and trees:

SCHEDULE-II OF FIRST APPEAL NO.787 OF 2003

Sr. Claimant Name Block Area Land House Trees Total After
No No. Acquired Deducting
20%
1 Kelya Kalshya 2 and 01H 80R 54,000/- 2,16,000/- 55,800/- 3,25,800/- 2,60,640/-
(Died thr. Lrs.) 7
2 Jegla Sokna Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil
(Died Thr. Lrs,)
3. Gumna 28 01H 00R 30,000/- 3,60,000/- 97,900/- 4,87,900/- 3,90,320/-
Seddada Bhil
(Died thr. Lrs.)
4. Jaijya @ Jatrya Nil Nil Nil 3,60,000/- Nil 3,60,000/- 2,88,000/-
Sedada
5. Faijya (Fojya) Nil Nil Nil 4,62,500/- Nil 4,62,500/- 3,70,000/-
Gumna
6. Gardya Gumna Nil Nil Nil 4,62,500/- Nil 4,62,500/- 3,70,000/-

SCHEDULE-II OF FIRST APPEAL NO.942 OF 2003

Sr. Claimant Name Block Area Land House Trees Total After
No No. Acquired Deducting
20%
1. Tukya Kutrya 6,72, 04H 90R 1,47,000/- Nil 1,17,250/- 2,64,250/- 2,11,400/-
Bhill (Died thr. 75 &
76
Lrs.)
2. Shera Rashya 63 01H 00R 30,000/- Nil 31,700/- 61,700/- 49,360/-
Bhill (Died Thr.
Lrs.)
3. Pachya Reda 39 01H 60R 48,000/- Nil 19,700/- 67,700/- 54,160/-
Bhil (Died thr.
Lrs)
4. Bongya Bidya 64 & 02H 30R 69,000/- Nil 55,000/- 1,25,000/- 1,00,200/-
Bhill (Died thr. 58
Lrs.)
5. Gardya Bidya Nil Nil Nil 3,04,500/- Nil 3,04,500/- 2,43,600/-
Bhill
6. Motya Rama 65 02H 00R 60,000/- 3,85,000/- 83,200/- 5,28,200/- 4,22,560/-
Bhill
956-fa-787-2003+
-14-

7. Singa Babla Nil Nil Nil 2,70,000/- Nil 2,70,000/- 2,16,000/-
Bhil
8. Radwa Bagla 70 01H 00R 30,000/- 3,14,000/- 26,000/- 3,70,000/- 2,96,000/-
Bhil
9. Juna Kutrya Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil
Bhil
10 Utarnya Surtya Nil Nil Nil 3,08,000/- Nil 3,08,000/- 2,46,400/-
Bhill

11. It is the acquisition of 1980. Therefore, value of land on the

date of notification is to be determined. If the claimants’ schedule of

the property details as shown in the above chart is accepted by

reducing 20% amount for human error , it would meet the ends of

justice to award reasonable amount of compensation.

12. As far as the fishing business of the claimants is concerned,

the claimants ages were 40 to 45 years. For that purpose, paragraph

no.4 of the deposition of the witnesses Bijya Ramji Vasave in First

Appeal No.942 of 2003 and in paragraph no.3 of claimants’ First

Appeal No.787 of 2003, deposition of witness Saysing Gardya Valvi,

have deposed that from the fishing business in the Narmada River,

they were earning Rs.150/- per day from that business. Their

testimonies are not disproved. Even if that is partly accepted, Rs.100/-

per day income in the year 1980 nature is natural probable. Thus, the

claimants were earning Rs.3000/- per month by their fishing business

at the time of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition

Act. If it is multiplied by 12 months, it comes to Rs.36,000/- per year.
956-fa-787-2003+
-15-

If it is multiplied by 10 years, then it comes to 3,60,000/- per year.

The said amount is determined as the evidence of these witnesses are

not shaken in the cross examination.

13. Therefore all the appellants are entitled for the

enhancement in compensation for fishing business i.e. Rs.3,60,000/-

each as held above. First Appeals deserve to be allowed. Impugned

judgments and awards deserve to be partly set aside. Hence, the

following order:

ORDER

a. Both the First Appeals are allowed.

b. Impugned judgment and awards are partly set aside
and modified as under:

i. All the appellants are entitled for the
compensation for the fishing business
@Rs.3,60,000/- each.

ii. All the appellants are entitled for the
compensation for the land, house and trees as per
both the schedule-II mentioned in paragraph
no.11 by deducting 20% amount from the total
amount shown in the charts.

c. The appellants are entitled for the statutory benefits
like solatium, interest, etc as per provisions of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894.
956-fa-787-2003+
-16-

d. Respondent-Acquiring Authority is directed to
deposit the enhanced amount of compensation along
with interest in this Court within six months.

e. Pending Civil Application, if any, is disposed of.

(SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.)

Rushikesh/2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…