Bombay High Court
NILKANTH RAOJI KULKARNIversusTHE STATE OF MAH and ANR
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The reference court's determination of compensation is proper and cannot be further enhanced.
Summary
The appellant's land was acquired in 1988 for the submergence of a reservoir, and an initial compensation award was made in 1991 based on fixed rates per hectare. Dissatisfied, the appellant filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for a proper determination of market value. The reference court, relying on a 1983 sale instance, applied a 10% annual increase to arrive at a compensation of Rs.93,750 per hectare. The appellant challenged this determination, alleging it was inadequate. The High Court examined the methodology and concluded that the reference court had correctly applied the law and the increase, finding no merit in further enhancement, and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the reference court erred in determining the market value of the acquired land under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.
- Whether the compensation awarded (Rs.93,750 per hectare) is adequate and in accordance with the statutory provisions.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act — s. 18, 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- market value
- Section 18
- reference court
- appeal dismissed
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:43319
FA 929/08
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
907 FIRST APPEAL NO. 929 OF 2008
NILKANTH RAOJI KULKARNI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. C.R. Deshpande
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. A.M.Phule
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
Dated : September 22, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. As the acquisition proceedings is initiated in the year 1988, heard
finally with the consent of learned counsel for respective parties.
2. By this appeal, the appellant/original claimant assails the judgment
and award dated 27.3.2006 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional District
Judge, Nilanga, Dist. Latur in LAR No. 365/1998, by which the learned
reference court has enhanced the compensation, but not granted as claimed
by the claimants.
3. The land of the claimant was acquired for submergence of K.T. Wear,
Killari, Tq. Ausa District Latur by issuing notification under section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act on 27.10.1988. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
(SLAO) has declared the award on 12.11.1991 and has granted
compensation to the acquired lands by classifying the acquired lands into
four groups and fixed the value of the acquired lands at the rate of
Rs.15,000/- per H. for lands falling under group II, at the rate of
Rs.17,000/- and 19,000/- per H. for the lands falling under group III and IV,
respectively. After receipt of the compensation under protest, the claimant
FA 929/08
2
filed reference under section 18 of the Act for proper determination of the
market value of the acquired land. The reference court after considering the
sale instances determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.93,750/- per
H.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the
reference court has committed error while determining the compensation
for the acquired land of the claimant and has granted very inadequate
compensation and therefore, the present appeal is filed.
5. The learned AGP supports the order passed by the reference court
and submits that the reference court has rightly determined the
compensation for acquired land and prays to dismiss the appeal.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, with their
assistance I have gone through the record and proceedings, the impugned
judgment and order of the reference court. On perusal of the same, it is
seen that the reference court after relying on the sale instance of S.No.41/A
which was dated 13.4.1983, determined the compensation by granting 10%
increase per year as the sale instance was of the year 1983 and section 4
notification was published in the year 1988. Therefore, after going through
the judgment and order passed by the reference court this Court finds that
the reference court has granted proper and just compensation and there is
no scope to grant further enhancement in favour of the appellant. Hence,
the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed.
( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )
ssc/
Checking your session…