Bombay High Court
THE STATE OF MAHversusKANCHANBAI DHARMACHAND KHABIYA and ORS.
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appeal is dismissed; the Reference Court’s determination of compensation is upheld.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed a judgment of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, which had enhanced compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The land, 2 hectares 71 R (27,100 sq m) in village Darewade, was initially awarded Rs 30,697, but on reference under Section 18 the court valued it at Rs 8 per sq m, resulting in total compensation of Rs 2,16,800 with statutory benefits. The State argued that the reference court’s valuation was excessive and unsupported by evidence, while the claimant contended that the court properly considered market evidence, non‑agricultural potential, and applied appropriate deductions. The appellate court examined the evidence, including a prior judgment valuing similar land at Rs 25 per sq m, and found the deductions and final rate of Rs 8 per sq m reasonable. Concluding there was no perversity, illegality or material irregularity, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the reference court’s award.
Issues considered
- Whether the Reference Court erred in determining the market value of the acquired land.
- Whether the deductions applied (size, development, and amenities) were appropriate under the Land Acquisition Act.
- Whether the enhancement of compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was justified.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 11, 18
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- market value
- Section 18
- valuation
- deductions
- appellate review
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:46165
233-FA-837-2011.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
233 FIRST APPEAL NO. 837 OF 2011
The State Of Maharashtra
VERSUS
Kanchanbai Dharmachand Khabiya And Others
……
Mr. D.R. Korde, AGP for Appellant-State
……
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 28 SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present First Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award
dated 15.03.2004 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Ahmednagar, in Land Acquisition Reference No.241 of 1993, whereby the
learned Reference Court partly allowed the reference under Section 18 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and enhanced the compensation payable to
the respondent-claimant along with statutory benefits.
3. The land admeasuring 2 Hectares 71 R from Survey No.86/1,
situated at village Darewade, Taluka and District Ahmednagar, belonging to
the respondent-claimant, was acquired for MIRC. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer passed an award under Section 11 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), on 21.05.1988 and awarded
total compensation of Rs.30,697/-. Being dissatisfied with the compensation
233-FA-837-2011.odt
2
awarded, the claimant accepted the amount under protest and sought a
reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation.
4. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Reference
Court, by the impugned Judgment and Award dated 15.03.2004,
determined the market value of the acquired land at Rs.8/- per sq. meter
and awarded total compensation of Rs.2,16,800/-, along with statutory
benefits. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-State has preferred the present
appeal.
5. Learned AGP appearing for the appellant-State submitted that the
learned Reference Court has granted excessive compensation without
sufficient evidence. He submitted that the material relied upon by the
Reference Court did not justify the rate awarded and, therefore, the
impugned Judgment and Award deserves to be set aside.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-claimant supported
the impugned Judgment and Award. He submitted that the learned
Reference Court has rightly considered the evidence of PW-1 and the
common Judgment in Land Acquisition Reference No.62 of 1990 at Exhibit-
17, as well as the non-agricultural potential of the acquired land. He
submitted that, after applying appropriate deductions, the Reference Court
has awarded a reasonable rate and, therefore, no interference is warranted.
7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned
Judgment and Award as well as the material available on record.
233-FA-837-2011.odt
3
8. The learned Reference Court has considered the testimony of PW-1
and the certified copy of the common Judgment in Land Acquisition
Reference No.62 of 1990 at Exhibit-17. The said Judgment was relevant for
determination of the market value, wherein the market value of the
acquired land, including Block No.81/3 of village Darewadi, was determined
at Rs.25/- per sq. meter, without applying the necessary deductions.
9. The learned Reference Court also considered that the acquired land
was situated near MIRC and that the claimants had placed material showing
its non-agricultural potentiality. It further noticed that the adjacent land
acquired for MIRC had been valued at Rs.11.25 per sq. meter about two
years prior to the relevant notification. Having regard to the location and
potentiality of the acquired land, the Reference Court assessed its market
value at Rs.20/- per sq. meter.
10. The Reference Court thereafter applied a deduction of 40% towards
the size and development of the acquired tract, bringing the rate to Rs.12/-
per sq. meter. It further deducted one-third towards development charges,
having regard to the fact that the acquired land was undeveloped
agricultural land without roads, drainage and other amenities, and
accordingly determined the net market value at Rs.8/- per sq. meter. The
calculation of compensation is also consistent with the area acquired,
namely 2 Hectares 71 R, equivalent to 27,100 sq. meters, and at Rs.8/- per
sq. meter the amount works out to Rs.2,16,800/-.
233-FA-837-2011.odt
4
11. The above determination is based on the evidence considered by the
learned Reference Court and the deductions have been specifically assigned
reasons. The appellant-State has not pointed out any error in the aforesaid
assessment or brought on record any better material warranting a different
determination. Upon independent re-appreciation of the evidence, no
perversity, illegality or material irregularity is found in the impugned
Judgment and Award so as to warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction.
12. The First Appeal is dismissed.
13. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
S P Rane
Checking your session…