Bombay High Court
AMARSING CHAMARYA PADVI DECEASED THROUGH LRS JALAMSING CHAMARYA PADVI AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The High Court held that the adjacent‑village sale is a comparable transaction after appropriate deductions and escalation, and the market value must be fixed at Rs 92,928 per hectare, thereby quashing the earlier award.
Summary
The appellants claimed land acquired for a minor irrigation project in Amlibari village and were compensated at Rs 53,000 per hectare by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Dissatisfied, they filed references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, relying on a sale of agricultural land in the nearby village of Rajmohi (Exhibit 22) as a comparable transaction. The Reference Court rejected the references, deeming the sale non‑comparable. The High Court held that, in the absence of any sale from Amlibari, the Rajmohi transaction could be treated as comparable after a 20% location deduction and a 10% per‑annum escalation to the notification date, arriving at a market value of Rs 92,928 per hectare. Consequently, the Court partially allowed the appeals, quashed the earlier judgment and award, and ordered the compensation to be enhanced accordingly, with interest and statutory benefits.
Issues considered
- Whether the Reference Court erred in rejecting the claimants' references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
- Whether a sale transaction from an adjacent village can be considered a comparable sale for valuation purposes.
- What adjustments and escalations are appropriate to determine the market value of the acquired land.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 11, 18, 28, 34, 4
Subjects
- Land acquisition
- Compensation enhancement
- Valuation of agricultural land
- Comparable sale
- Section 18 reference
- Interest on compensation
- Statutory benefits
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:41856
901-FA-929-2015.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
901 FIRST APPEAL NO. 929 OF 2015
Monya Monshi Naik (Deceased)
Through L.Rs. Atrya Divlya Naik And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 927 OF 2015
Atrya Divalya Naik and Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 928 OF 2015
Supa Chhanya Valvi and Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 930 OF 2015
Resubai @ Relubai Vesta Valvi and Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 931 OF 2015
Jatrya Monshi Naik (Deceased)
Through L.Rs. Bhanga Jatrya Naik and Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 932 OF 2015
Amarsing Chamarya Padvi (Deceased)
Through L.Rs. Jalamsing Chamarya Padvi and Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
……
Mr. Dhananjay Mane, Advocate h/f Mr. D.M. Pingale, Advocate for
Appellants-Claimants
Mr. S.N. Morampalle, AGP for Respondents No.1 and 2
……
901-FA-929-2015.odt
2
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 04 SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard the learned counsel Mr. Dhananjay Mane, holding for Mr.
D.M. Pingale, learned counsel for the appellants-claimants, and the learned
AGP Mr. S.N. Morampalle for Respondents No.1 and 2. Though served, none
appears for Respondent No.3.
2. These appeals take exception to the common Judgment and Award
dated 14.10.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Shahada in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.01 of 2009 to 06 of 2009,
whereby the references preferred by the respective claimants under Section
18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) came to be
rejected.
3. The lands belonging to the respective claimants, situated at village
Amlibari, Taluka Akkalkuwa, District Nandurbar, came to be acquired for the
Minor Irrigation Project, Amlibari. The particulars of the acquired lands are
as under:
Sr. No. LAR No. Survey/Gat No. Area Acquired
1. 01 of 2009 66/29 1 H 09 R
2. 02 of 2009 68 0 H 09 R
3. 03 of 2009 66/1 1 H 10 R
4. 04 of 2009 60 02 H 02 R
5. 05 of 2009 65 02 H 43 R
6 06 of 2009 67 0 H 01 R
901-FA-929-2015.odt
3
4. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on
08.07.2004. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “the SLAO”)
thereafter passed the Award under Section 11 of the Act on 10.06.2006 and
determined the market value of the acquired dry land at the rate of
Rs.53,000/- per hectare. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of
compensation, the claimants received the amount under protest and sought
references under Section 18 of the Act. The said references were accordingly
made to the learned Reference Court.
5. Before the learned Reference Court, the claimants relied upon sale
instances from adjacent villages, including the sale instance at Exhibit 22
from village Rajmohi and another sale instance from village Korai. The
learned Reference Court noticed that no sale instance from village Amlibari
was available. It examined the relied-upon sale instances and observed that
the transaction from village Korai was not comparable, inter alia, having
regard to the distance and the nature of the land. In respect of the sale
instance relied upon at Exhibit 22, the learned Reference Court proceeded
on the basis that the lands covered by the sale instances were irrigated lands
and, after applying a reduction, found the resultant rates to be lower than
the rate of Rs.53,000/- per hectare determined by the SLAO. The learned
Reference Court, therefore, rejected the references.
901-FA-929-2015.odt
4
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned
Reference Court failed to appreciate the sale instance at Exhibit 22 in its
proper perspective. It is submitted that the said transaction relates to 1 H 10
R of land situated at village Rajmohi, which was sold for consideration of
Rs.96,000/- on 04.05.2000. According to the learned counsel, village
Rajmohi is situated only about 2 to 3 kilometres from village Amlibari and,
therefore, the said transaction furnishes a reliable comparable instance,
particularly when no suitable sale instance from the acquired village was
available. It is further submitted that the SLAO had not based the valuation
on any comparable sale transaction from Amlibari, but had relied principally
upon the ready reckoner rate. Hence, according to the learned counsel, the
market value deserved to be reassessed on the basis of Exhibit 22 after
making reasonable deductions and applying appropriate escalation up to the
date of the Section 4 notification.
7. Per contra, the learned AGP supports the impugned Judgment and
Award. He submits that the sale instances relied upon by the claimants were
not comparable with the acquired lands and that the learned Reference
Court had examined the material on record and recorded cogent reasons for
not granting enhancement. It is further submitted that the rate of
Rs.53,000/- per hectare determined by the SLAO was already fair and
reasonable. The learned AGP, however, does not dispute that there was no
comparable sale transaction available from village Amlibari and that the
901-FA-929-2015.odt
5
Court may independently examine the sale instance at Exhibit 22 on the
basis of the evidence available on record.
8. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the Record and
Proceedings and the reasons recorded by the learned Reference Court.
9. In the absence of any comparable sale instance from village Amlibari,
the available sale instance from the adjacent village is required to be
examined for determining the market value of the acquired lands. The
valuation was, therefore, required to be assessed on the basis of the best
available comparable evidence. The sale instance at Exhibit 22 is dated
04.05.2000 and relates to 1 H 10 R of agricultural land situated at village
Rajmohi. The evidence on record indicates that village Rajmohi is situated at
a distance of about 2 to 3 kilometres from the acquired lands at village
Amlibari. Such distance, by itself, cannot render the transaction wholly
irrelevant, particularly when no contemporaneous sale instance from the
acquired village is available.
10. Therefore, the sale instance at Exhibit 22 can, therefore, be
considered as a comparable sale instance, subject to appropriate adjustment
having regard to the difference in location, situation and other relevant
factors. The said transaction relates to 1 H 10 R of land sold for a
consideration of Rs.96,000/-. The rate per hectare under the said
transaction would accordingly work out to Rs.87,272.73/- per hectare.
Having regard to the fact that the sale instance is from an adjacent village
901-FA-929-2015.odt
6
and not from the acquired village itself, a deduction of 20% from the
aforesaid rate would be appropriate. Thus, the deduction of 20% from
Rs.87,272.73/- works out to Rs.17,454.55/-. Consequently, the rate after
such deduction would work out to Rs.69,818.18/- per hectare. The sale
transaction is dated 04.05.2000, whereas the notification under Section 4 of
the Act was published on 08.07.2004. By applying cumulative escalation at
the rate of 10% per annum for three years, the rate of Rs.69,818.18/- per
hectare works out to Rs.92,928/- per hectare.
11. The aforesaid determination is also consistent with the assessment
made by the learned Reference Court that the sale instances relied upon by
the claimants, after appropriate deductions, worked out to rates comparable
to the rate determined by the SLAO. However, the learned Reference Court
failed to give due weight to the fact that Exhibit 22 was a transaction from a
village situated in close proximity to the acquired lands and that there was
no sale instance available from village Amlibari itself.
12. In view of the above discussion, the impugned Judgment and Award
cannot be sustained to the extent that the learned Reference Court rejected
the references in their entirety. The claimants are entitled to enhancement of
compensation by determining the market value of the acquired dry land at
Rs.92,928/- per hectare as on the date of publication of the notification
under Section 4 of the Act, namely, 08.07.2004. Hence, the following order:
901-FA-929-2015.odt
7
ORDER
(i) The First Appeals are partly allowed.
(ii) The common Judgment and Award dated 14.10.2014 passed by the
learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Shahada in Land Acquisition Reference
Nos.01 of 2009 to 06 of 2009 is quashed and set aside.
(iii) The market value of the acquired dry lands covered by Land
Acquisition Reference Nos.01 of 2009 to 06 of 2009 shall be determined at
the rate of Rs.92,928/- per hectare instead of Rs.53,000/- per hectare
awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
(iv) The claimants shall be entitled to the enhanced compensation
accordingly, after giving credit for the amount already paid.
(iv) The claimants shall be entitled to all consequential statutory benefits
on the enhanced compensation in accordance with the provisions of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
(v) The claimants shall be entitled to interest on the enhanced
compensation in accordance with Sections 28 and 34 of the Act and the law
laid down by the Full Bench in State of Maharashtra v. Kailas Shiva Rangari,
2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457.
(vi) The appellant-claimant shall pay deficit court fees.
(vii) Modified award be drawn accordingly.
(viii) Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
901-FA-929-2015.odt
8
13. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that these
proceedings have been pending since 2009 and that some of the appellants
are reported to have expired. Therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased
appellants are at liberty to initiate execution proceedings before the
Executing Court upon obtaining the requisite succession certificate/heirship
certificate.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
S P Rane
Checking your session…