ASSISTANT ENGINEER (C) MSEB (NOW MSEDCL) CIVIL CONSTRUCTION SUB DIVN BEHIND USHA KIRAN TALKIES LATUversusNANDKUMAR DNYANOBA DARPHALKAR AND ANR

2026:BHC-AUG:36401

                                                                       910-FA-920-2010.doc




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                               910 FIRST APPEAL NO. 920 OF 2010

               Assistant Engineer (c) Mseb (now Msedcl) Civil Construction Sub Divn
                                   Behind Usha Kiran Talkies Latu
                                             VERSUS
                             Nandkumar Dnyanoba Darphalkar And Anr

                                                  ...
          Mr. A. M. Gaikwad for the Appellant.
          Mr. Sachin Pahale for Respondent No.1.
          Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for State.
                                               ...


                                            CORAM :      SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                            DATE :       6 AUGUST 2026

          P. C.:

          1.        As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1991, the Appeal is being

          heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.

          2.        By this Appeal, the Appellant-acquiring body is challenging the

          judgment and award dated 2nd May 2008, passed by the Ad hoc District

          Judge-2, Latur in LAR No.576 of 1996 whereby enhanced compensation

          came to be granted to the claimants.

          3.        The land of the claimants was acquired for the purpose of installation

          of 33 KV sub-station at village Matola Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur. The notification

          under Section 4 was published on 11th November 1991, the possession was

          taken prior to notification under Section 4 on 25 th January 1991, award was

          passed on 11th December 1994 thereby awarding compensation @Rs.10/-

          Shubham                                                                Page 1 of 4
                                                           910-FA-920-2010.doc


per sq. mt., the claimants had claimed compensation @Rs.15/- per sq. ft.

The learned Reference Court enhanced the same to Rs.6/- per sq. ft.

4.        The learned counsel for the acquiring body submits that the learned

Reference Court has erroneously relied upon sale instances below Exhs.22,

23 and 24 while determining market value of the acquired land @Rs.6/- per

sq. ft. He further submits that once the claimants themselves have

mentioned in the claim petition about 20% area to be deducted towards

development expenses, the learned Reference Court ought not have granted

compensation for the whole acquired land. Therefore, he submits that the

impugned award requires modification to the extent of deducting 20% area

while determining enhanced compensation. He further submits that sale

instances below Exhs.23 and 24 pertain to house properties whereas the

acquired land is an agricultural land. Therefore, the learned Reference Court

ought not have relied upon said sale instances. Therefore, he prays to allow

the First Appeal and quashed the impugned award.

5.        Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant supports the impugned

award by contending that though the claimants have themselves deducted

20% area while claiming enhanced compensation, the same shall not be

regarded as consent. Once the land was acquired for installation of electicity

sub-station, such deduction of 20% towards development expenses is wholly

unwarranted, though the claimants had mentioned in claim petition about

such deduction while claiming compensation. The learned Reference Court

Shubham                                                              Page 2 of 4
                                                          910-FA-920-2010.doc


has rightly granted enhanced compensation for the whole acquired land by

ignoring the fact that the claimants had deducted 20% area towards

development expenses. By relying upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in Bhagwathula Samanna & Ors. Vs. Special Tahsildar and Land

Acquisition Officer Visakhapatnam Municpality, Visakhapatnam [(1991) 4

SCC 506], he prays to dismiss the First Appeal.

6.        Having heard rival submissions of the learned counsel and perusing

the record, the claimants mentioned about deduction of 20% area from the

acquired land towards development expenses, but the same cannot be said

to be an explicit consent given by the claimants and the learned Reference

Court has to decide the reference by dwelling into the facts and

circumstances of the case. In the present matter, the learned Reference Court

has granted enhancement for the whole acquired land of 80R by considering

that there is no necessity to deduct 20% area towards development

expenses, which in my opinion is appropriate.

7.        The learned Reference Court has relied upon sale instances below

Exhs.22, 23 and 24 dated 16th April 1991, 6th December 1989 and 27th May

1991, which were prior to Section 4 notification, wherein the market value

was Rs.5/- per sq. ft. and Rs.6/- per sq. ft. The learned Reference Court

considered the market value of the whole acquired land @Rs.6/- per sq. ft.

The learned Reference Court has recorded finding that the acquired land is

already a developed land and thus there is no need to deduct 20% area

Shubham                                                             Page 3 of 4
                                                                   910-FA-920-2010.doc


towards development. Hence, I am of the opinion that the impugned award

warrants no interfere.

8.        The First Appeal, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. No order

as to costs.

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




                                          [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]




Shubham                                                                      Page 4 of 4