Bombay High Court

STATE OF MAHAversusDHONDIBA SAMBHAU KECHARE

Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The reference court’s award of compensation is upheld as proper.

Summary

The State of Maharashtra appealed a 1996 order of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, which had enhanced compensation for land acquired for an air‑strip at Latur. The acquisition was notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 28 April 1988 and possession was taken earlier. The State contended that the reference court erred in valuing the land, while the respondents relied on a sale of two acres for Rs 95,104 dated 6 March 1987. The court examined the sale, applied a 10 % escalation for the pre‑notification timing, deducted 20 % for betterment and deferred value, and found the resulting compensation of Rs 7,54,500 and Rs 2,26,500 appropriate. Consequently, the court held there was no perversity in the reference court’s award and dismissed the appeals. No costs were awarded.

Issues considered

Whether the reference court correctly applied escalation and betterment deductions in determining market value for compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.
Whether the enhanced compensation awarded to the claimants is excessive and should be reduced.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation
valuation
betterment charges
escalation
airstrip
appellate court

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:28817

905-906-FA-800-2008.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
905 FIRST APPEAL NO. 800 OF 2008

The State Of Maharashtra
VERSUS
Nivarati Sakharam Bombalge Died Lrs

AND
906 FIRST APPEAL NO. 801 OF 2008

State Of Maha
VERSUS
Dhondiba Sambhau Kechare

…
Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for State.
Mr. S. S. Panale for the Respondents.
...

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 10 JULY 2026

P. C.:

1. As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1988, heard finally with

the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. By these Appeals, the State is aggrieved by the judgment and order

dated 2nd April 1996, passed by the Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division, Latur in

LAR Nos.83 and 105 of 1991 whereby enhanced compensation came to be

granted to the Respondents-claimants.

3. The land of the Respondents-claimants was acquired for the purpose

of construction of Airstrip at Latur. The notification under Section 4 was

published on 28th April 1988. Possession was taken on 14 th February 1987.
Shubham Page 1 of 3
905-906-FA-800-2008.doc

The LAO granted compensation of Rs.18,120/-. The Reference Court granted

compensation of Rs.1,51,000/- whereas the Respondents-claimants had

claimed compensation @Rs.50,000/- per acre.

4. Mr. Shinde, learned AGP for State submits that the learned Reference

Court has committed an error appreciating the oral as well as documentary

evidence. He submits that the SLAO has rightly granted the compensation

considering the quality of the land. The SLAO considered the comparable

sale instances and rightly arrived at proper market value for the acquired

land but the Reference Court enhanced the same unreasonably. Hence, he

prays to allow the First Appeals.

5. Mr. Panale, learned counsel for the Respondents strongly opposed the

present Appeal and supported the impugned award.

6. I have considered submissions of learned AGP and gone through R&P.

The claimants produced sale instance below Exh.19 dated 6 th March 1987

wherein the land admeasuring 2 acres was sold for Rs.95,104/-. The learned

Reference Court by considering the fact that the sale instance was prior to

one year of the date of notification under Section 4, applied 10% escalation.

It further recorded a finding that acquired land is situated 2 to 3 kms from

land in sale instance below Exh.19. Thus, it came to market value of

Rs.40,000/- per acre. Further, it deducted 20% from said market value

towards betterment charges and deferred value thereby reaching

compensation of Rs.7,54,500/- and Rs.2,26,500/- in respective Appeals. The

Shubham Page 2 of 3
905-906-FA-800-2008.doc

conclusion arrived by the learned Reference Court is appropriate and

requires no interference. Thus, considering the above I do not find any

perversity in the said order to the extent of quantum of compensation.

7. Hence, the present Appeals stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

8. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

[SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]

Shubham Page 3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…