KAMALBAI GOVINDRAO PATILversusSTATE OF MAHA and ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:17568


                                                                   FA NO.944 OF 2004.odt


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                                    FIRST APPEAL NO.944 OF 2004
                      Smt. Kamalbai W/o Govindrao Patil,
                      Age: 55 years, Occu: Agriculture & Household,
                      R/o. Nilanga, Dist. Latur                  ..APPELLANT

                      VERSUS

                 1.   The State of Maharashtra
                      Through Collector, Latur,
                      Dist. Latur

                 2.    Maharashtra State Electricity Board,
                       Through the Executive Engineer (Civil)
                       M.S.E.B. Aurangabad/Latur.                ...RESPONDENTS
                                                  ….
                 Mr. Bhargav Kulkarni a/w Mr. Bhushan B. Kulkarni, Advocate for
                 the appellant
                 Mr. S. B. Jadhav, AGP for Respondent/State
                 Mr. D. P. Palodkar, Advocate for respondent No.2

                                     CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
                           RESERVED DATE : 19.12.2025
                     PRONOUNCED DATE : 18.03.2026
                 JUDGMENT :-

                 1.        This appeal is preferred against the judgment and

                 award dated 19.09.2003 passed by the learned Land Reference

                 Court, Nilanga District Latur in L.A.R. No.157 of 2003 (Old L.A.R.

                 No.184 of 1990).


                 2.        Earlier, the claimant had filed First Appeal No.176 of

                 1994 and the same was remanded to the learned trial Court with a


                                                                                1 of 9
                                  (( 2 ))          FA NO.944 OF 2004


direction for fresh adjudication by impleading the M.S.E.B. as an

additional respondent.


3.        The appellant/claimant’s land bearing Survey No.30,

situated at Nilanga Dist. Latur, admeasuring 4 H 65 Are, was acquired

by the State Government for the purpose of installation of a 132 K.V.

Sub-Station of the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (M.S.E.B) Now

M.S.E.D.C.L. at Nilanga District Latur, pursuant to the notification

issued and published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894, dated 30.07.1987.    The Land Acquisition Officer passed an

award on 05.04.1989 and awarded compensation of Rs.1,77,863/-.

The learned Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation

and awarded Rs.3,91,819/-. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the

judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court, the

appellant has preferred the present appeal for enhancement of

compensation.


4.        Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the sale

exemplars at Exhibits 19 and 23 pertain to Kasbe Nilanga town

executed on 12.12.1986 and 13.05.1986, respectively, i.e., about one

year prior to the acquisition are comparable sale exemplars, however,

the learned Reference Court did not rely upon them. It is contended


                                                              2 of 9
                                   (( 3 ))          FA NO.944 OF 2004


that the learned Reference Court did not determine the compensation

of the acquired land as per the evidence on record.         He further

submitted that the said sale exemplars are relevant and bona fide and

there is no reason to disbelieve them.       He therefore prayed to

enhance the compensation in view of the said sale exemplars at

exhibits 19 and 23. In support of his submissions, he is relying upon

the following authority:

a.        The State of Maharashtra Vs. Balaji S/o Baburao Shinde,

First Appeal No.601 of 1993 decided on 07.07.2004, wherein it is

held that even land situated within the Municipal Council area, as

reflected in the sale exemplar, can be considered, and compensation

can be awarded accordingly by taking into account its location, size,

shape, and potentiality.


5.        Learned AGP Mr. S. B. Jadhav for respondent–State and

learned Advocate Mr. D. P. Palodkar for respondent No. 2 strongly

opposed the appeal and submitted that a reasonable amount of

compensation has been awarded by the learned Reference Court in

accordance with the market value prevailing at the time of acquisition

of land and the publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 30.07.1987. They submitted that the



                                                               3 of 9
                                    (( 4 ))            FA NO.944 OF 2004


learned Reference Court, while awarding compensation, relied upon

the sale exemplar at Exhibit-69 dated 13.04.1987, pertaining to land

situated at Nilanga bearing Survey No.30, wherein land admeasuring

80 R was sold for a consideration of Rs.90,000/- i.e., Rs.45,000/- per

acre. They submitted that the acquired land is also a part of Survey

No.30 of Nilanga and it was acquired in the year 1987.                 They,

therefore, submitted that the said sale exemplar has been rightly

accepted by the learned Reference Court by giving cogent and

acceptable reasons. They, therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal, as

there is no substance in the grounds of objections raised in it.           In

support of their submissions, they are relying upon the following

authorities:


a.         Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition

Officer, Poona and Another, (1988) 3 SCC 751, wherein the Hon’ble

Supreme Court has held that the market value of the acquired land is

to be determined on the basis of comparable sale instances proximate

in time to the notification under Section 4, with due adjustments for

relevant factors such as location, size, and potentiality.

b.         Goa Housing Board Vs. Rameshchandra Govind Pawaskar

and Another, (2011) 10 SCC 371, in which paragraph No.13 reads as

under:

                                                                  4 of 9
                                       (( 5 ))              FA NO.944 OF 2004


                 “13.      The question is whether such prohibition will affect
     the market value of the land. The respondent submitted that this Court
     had repeatedly held that all lands situated in the same area and
     acquired by the same notification, should be awarded the same
     compensation.      He relied upon the judgment in K. Pariasami V.
     Tehsildar (LA) and DDA V. Bali Ram Sharma. There can be no doubt
     that similarly situated land in the same area, having the same
     advantages and acquired under the same notification should be
     awarded the same compensation. But the question is when one land is
     a freehold land not subject to any restrictions in regard to user and the
     adjoining land though similarly situated is subject to a permanent
     restriction regarding user requiring it to be used only for agricultural
     purposes, the question is whether the two lands can be terms as
     comparable    lands    which    should      be   subjected   to   the      same
     compensation.”



c.          Periyar And Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala,

(1991) 4 SCC 195, in which paragraph No.15 reads as under:

     “15.        In the light of these principles, the further contention that
     having rejected the documents produced by the State, the High Court
     ought to have relied upon the documents produced by the appellant as
     comparable sale and would have confirmed the compensation awarded
     by the civil court does not impress us as well founded. It is well settled
     law that the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector forms
     an offer and that it is for the claimants to adduce relevant and material
     evi-dence to establish that the acquired lands are capable of fetching
     higher market value and the amount offered by the Land Acquisition
     Collector was inadequate and he proceeded on a wrong premise or
     principle. In Ezra v. Secretary of State for India, it was held that the
     amount awarded by the Collector forms an offer. It was reiterated by

                                                                       5 of 9
                                       (( 6 ))             FA NO.944 OF 2004


      this Court in Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Dy. Land Acquisition
      Officer, Khorshed Shapoor Chenai v. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty
      and Dr G.H. Grant v. State of Bihar. In Dr Harisingh case, A.P. Sen, J.
      held (and majority did not disagree) at p. 191 C to E that: (SCC p. 244,
      para 16)
      "In a reference under Section 18 of the Act, the burden of proving that
      the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector is inadequate
      lies upon the claimant, and he must show affirmatively that the
      Collector had proceeded upon a wrong basis. The nature and the
      burden of establishing that he was wrong, depends on the nature of the
      enquiry held by him.... It is equally well settled that where the claimant
      leads no evidence to show that the conclusions reached in the award
      were inadequate, or, that it offered unsatisfactory compensation, the
      award has to be confirmed."
      In that case it was held that the evidence produced was untrustworthy.
      Same is the view of Bombay High Court in Asstt. Development Officer v.
      Tayaballi Allibhoy Bohori and of A.P. High Court in Narasingh Rao case
      and T.W. Higgins-claimant v. Secretary of State, Naresh Chandra Bose v.
      State of West Bengal, Smt Kusumgauri Ramray Munshi v. Special Land
      Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad and Maharao Shri Madansinhji v. State
      of Gujarat. It is also the duty of the State to adduce evidence in
      rebuttal.”



6.          Nobody will dispute ratio laid down in the above

authorities.     However, it is well settled that facts of the case are

decisive.



7.          On perusal of the evidence, pleadings, grounds of objection


                                                                      6 of 9
                                   (( 7 ))          FA NO.944 OF 2004


raised in the appeal, and the reasons and findings in the impugned

judgment, it is crystal clear that Exhibits-19 and 23 pertain to open

plots situated within Nilanga town. The sale exemplar at Exhibit-19

dated 12.12.1986 relates to a plot Admeasuring 20 X 15 bearing

Survey No.289, sold for a consideration of Rs.15,000/-.        Similarly,

the sale exemplar at Exhibit-23 dated 06.05.1986 pertains to a plot

admeasuring 45 X 20 bearing Survey No.296 sold for Rs.15,000/-.

Those sale exemplars pertain to a small-sized plots situated within the

city, which naturally fetch higher rates as compared to the claimant’s

agricultural land.


8.          The learned Reference Court, in paragraph No.12 of the

impugned judgment, has held that the sale exemplar at Exhibit-19 is

situated near the bus stand and Shivaji Chowk, Nilanga which is not

adjacent to the acquired land. The sale exemplar at Exhibit-23 is also

situated far away from the acquired land. Therefore, both these sale

exemplars are not helpful in determining the market value of the

acquired land, as they do not relate to lands adjoining or similarly to

the acquired land.


9.        The claimant’s land is adjacent to the city but not situated

within the city limits. Hence, it cannot be equated with the plots


                                                               7 of 9
                                   (( 8 ))          FA NO.944 OF 2004


covered under sale exemplars at Exhibits-19 and 23 for awarding the

higher rates of compensation, i.e., Rs.50 per sq. ft. and Rs.16.50 per

sq. ft., respectively. On the contrary, the sale exemplar at Exhibit-69

dated 13.04.1987 pertains to land bearing Survey No.30 at Nilanga.

The acquired land is also part of Survey No.30 and it was also

acquired in the same year, i.e., 1987. Therefore, the learned

Reference Court has rightly relied upon the said sale exemplar.



10.       Considering the above aspects, this Court is of the view that

the learned Reference Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and

held that the sale exemplars at Exhibits-19 and 23 are not comparable

due to differences in location,   size and nature, whereas the sale

exemplar at Exhibit-69 is of a similar nature of land situated outside

the city of Nilanga. Thus, the reasons and findings of the learned

Reference Court are found legal and correct and no interference is

warranted therein.



11.       The law laid down in case of The State of Maharashtra Vs.

Balaji (Supra) is not helpful to the appellant for seeking interference

in the impugned judgment, as the evidence has been properly

appreciated by the learned Reference Court.


                                                               8 of 9
                                    (( 9 ))            FA NO.944 OF 2004




12.        There is no scope for interference in the impugned

judgment and award as no any illegality and perversity is found on

re-appreciation of entire evidence. The appeal, therefore, deserves to

be dismissed.    The appeal is dismissed accordingly with no costs.

Pending civil applications, if any, are disposed of.



                                  [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]
HRJadhav




                                                                  9 of 9