Bombay High Court
DAGDU BABURAO MUSLEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- RAJNISH R VYAS
Holding
The High Court found no illegality in the reference court's award and dismissed the appeal, upholding the enhanced compensation of Rs. 700 per R.
Summary
Dagdu, the owner of 0.42 R of land acquired for the Yeldarwadi storage tank, challenged the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, who had treated the land as dry‑crop land and paid Rs. 920 per R. He sought a reference court review, presenting documents such as a sale deed, maps, 7/12 extracts and an urban valuation report, arguing that the land was irrigated and that higher compensation and rental compensation were due. The reference court, after considering the sale deed, fixed an enhanced compensation of Rs. 700 per R and awarded compensation for trees. The High Court held that the additional documents were either irrelevant, untimely, or not contested, and that the reference court had acted within its jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, leaving the enhanced compensation intact.
Issues considered
- Whether the reference court erred in treating the acquired land as dry‑crop land for compensation purposes.
- Whether the sale deed, map, 7/12 extracts and urban valuation report should have been considered in determining market value.
- Whether the claimant is entitled to rental compensation for possession taken before the Section 4 notification.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act — s. 4, 6
Subjects
- Land acquisition
- Compensation
- Dry vs irrigated land
- Reference court
- Enhanced compensation
- Rental compensation
- Valuation
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:6457
1 914FA868.2018.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 868 OF 2018
Dagdu S/o. Baburao Musle,
Age. 46 years, Occ. Agri.,
R/o. Gaulwadi, Post Ranisawargaon,
Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani. …Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector, Parbhani.
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Marathwada Krishi Vidyapith, Parbhani.
3. Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Department,
Latur. ...Respondents
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Kale Mahesh P.
AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. V.S. Badakh
Advocate for Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sangle Shirish G.
...
CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.
DATE : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard respective counsels.
2. The claimant, who was the owner of land Gat No. 211
admeasuring 0H.42 R in Gaulwadi, had taken an exception to the award
passed by the reference Court in LAR No. 11/2011, dated 17.11.2017.
2 914FA868.2018.odt
The land was acquired by the respondent for the construction of the
Yeldarwadi storage tank, situated at Gaulwadi.
3. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was
issued on 20.04.2005, and notice under Section 6 came to be published
on 21.11.2005. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had offered a rate
of compensation of Rs. 920/- per R, treating the acquired land as dry crop
land.
4. Being dissatisfied, the reference was sought, which was
decided by the reference Court.
5. In order to prove the case, claimant examined himself, so also
relied upon exhibit 38 which was the final award dated 21.06.2006,
exhibit 29 was the award statement “E”, exhibit 30 was the sale deed of
the adjoining village, exhibit 31 was the 7/12 extract of the acquired land
and exhibit 32 was Urban Valuation report for the year 2014. Claimant
has also relied upon exhibit 33 that was map of Gaulwadi and exhibit 12
was Civil Revision Application No. 21/2015.
6. Learned counsel for the claimant contended that the aforesaid
documents were not taken into consideration and in fact, the land which
3 914FA868.2018.odt
was acquired was not a dry crop land but was an irrigated land. He,
therefore, prayed for enhancement of compensation.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the acquiring body contended
that the reference Court has rightly taken into consideration various
aspects and, thereafter, has passed an award.
8. I have gone through the record of the case, so also heard the
respective counsels at length. Exhibit 30 was the sale deed which was
relied upon by the claimant. The trial Court had taken into consideration
exhibit 30 for determining the market value of the acquired land. The
trial Court had further stated that since nothing was brought to disbelieve
exhibit 30, by the acquiring body, amount of Rs. 700/- per R was fixed as
an appropriate rate of compensation.
9. It is pertinent to mention here that so far as the contention of
the appellant/the claimant that exhibit 33 i.e. the map should have been
taken into consideration, suffice it to say that the said map does not show
that land mentioned in the sale deed was adjacent to the acquired land.
10. As far as 7/12 extract i.e. exhibit 31 is concerned, perusal of
it would reveal that it is of 2014, whereas the Section 4 notification was
passed on 20.04.2005, and award by the Special Land Acquisition
4 914FA868.2018.odt
Officer was passed on 21.06.2006. Thus exhibit 31 cannot be taken into
consideration and rightly it was ignored while determining the
compensation by the reference Court.
11. Coming to exhibit 37 which is a 7/12 extract of the acquired
land, it is of the year 2006 and therefore cannot be taken into
consideration.
12. As far as the compensation for trees is concerned, it is
admitted that the exact valuation was not brought on record by producing
the valuation report / examining the expert evidence. Even otherwise, the
reference Court has awarded the compensation for the trees.
13. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the
possession of the land was taken on 15.04.2001, whereas notification
under Section 4 was issued on 20.04.2005, and therefore, the claimant
was entitled to rental compensation. Learned counsel may be right in
advancing the aforesaid arguments, but the fact remains that such a
prayer will have to be made before the competent authority.
14. The reference Court has granted additional Rs. 700/-
enhanced compensation to the claimant. In that view of the matter, I do
not find any illegality committed by the reference Court while granting
5 914FA868.2018.odt
additional enhanced compensation of Rs. 700/- to the claimant. The
evidence produced on record was rightly appreciated and, thereafter, the
reference was decided. In that view of the matter, nothing survives in the
matter. Hence, the following order is passed :
ORDER
First Appeal is dismissed.
( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. )
SPC
Checking your session…