GMIDC THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER LATURL MEDIUM PROJECT LATURversusTHE STATE OF MAHRASHTRA AND ANR

2026:BHC-AUG:26611
                                               1 of 10              19-FA.948.2014



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                                19 FIRST APPEAL NO. 948 OF 2014
                                             WITH
                                 FIRST APPEAL NO.947 OF 2014

                    GMIDC THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER LATURL MEDIUM
                                            PROJECT LATUR
                                                VERSUS
                               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
                                                  ...
               Mr. Madhukar G. Kolse Patil, Advocate for Appellant.
               Ms. A. S. Mantri, AGP for Respondent-State.
               Mr. B. N. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                                                  …
                                         CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                         DATE : 2nd JULY, 2026

               P.C.:-

               1.        Heard. First Appeal No.947/2014 is not on Board. Taken on

               Board.

               2.        By these appeals, the Appellant/acquiring body is challenging

               the order dated 25.03.2010 passed by learned District Judge-1, Nilanga

               in LAR Nos.913/1998 and 916/1998, whereby enhanced compensation

               came to be granted to the Claimant/Respondent No.2.

               3.        The present appeals are arising out of the award pertaining

               to the lands acquired for Masalga Medium Project.

               4.        As noted above, the lands, which are the subject matter in

               the present appeals were acquired for the Masalga Medium project.

               Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

               (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in that regard was published in the
                                2 of 10             19-FA.948.2014



official Gazette on 1st October, 1992. Award under Section 11 of the

Act came to be passed on 13th April, 1996. The Special Land

Acquisition Officer offered the compensation for the acquired land by

determining the market value of the said lands @ Rs. 38,235/ per

hectare for dry land. Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation so

offered by the SLAO, the claimants had filed the Reference

Applications, seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation,

which were forwarded for adjudication to the District court at Nilanga

(hereinafter referred to as the Reference Court). The claimants had

claimed the compensation @ Rs.1,00,000/ per hectare for Jirayat land

and Rs.2,00,000/ per hectare for the irrigated land. In addition to

their own testimony, the claimants had placed on record certain sale

instances in order to substantiate their claims. No oral or documentary

evidence was adduced by the State of by the acquiring body. The

learned Reference Court, after having assessed the oral and

documentary evidence brought on record before it, determined the

market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.1,00,000/ per hectare for dry

lands and @ Rs.2,00,000/- per Hector for irrigated lands and

accordingly enhanced the amount of compensation. Aggrieved by, as

noted above, the acquiring body has filed the present appeals.

5.        Shri M. G. Kolshe Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the

acquiring body, submitted that the reference court has enhanced the
                                3 of 10             19-FA.948.2014



amount of compensation unreasonably, discarding the evidence on

record. The learned Counsel submitted that, in fact, when all the

claimants were served with notice under Section 5 of the Act, at the

first instance, they were supposed to appear before the SLAO and place

on record the necessary evidence. The learned Counsel submitted that

none of the claimants availed the said opportunity and resultantly, on

the basis of the material collected by the SLAO, he determined the

market value of the acquired land and awarded the amount of

compensation. The learned Counsel submitted that the claimants had,

therefore, lost their right to raise any objection as regards to the

amount of compensation offered by the SLAO.

6.       The learned Counsel further submitted that the Reference

Court has wrongly relied upon the sale deed at Exh. 23. The learned

Counsel further submitted that the land which was the subject matter

of Exh. 23, was admittedly from different village and there is no

discussion in the impugned judgment as to whether the said land was

in any way comparable with the subject lands in nature and quality etc.

The learned Counsel submitted that without making any discussion, it

was not open for the Reference Court to rely upon the said sale

instance for determining the market value of the acquired lands. The

learned Counsel further submitted that the Reference Court has further

grossly erred in totally discarding the observations made by the SLAO
                                4 of 10            19-FA.948.2014



in the award under Section 11 of the Act.

7.       The learned Counsel further submitted that the sale instances

which were relied upon by the claimants before the Reference Court,

were duly considered and discarded by the SLAO while making the

Award under Section 11 of the Act. The learned Counsel submitted that

in the impugned judgment, the Reference Court has not even touched

to the said aspect and has not recorded any other finding or recording

any such opinion that the sale instances were wrongly kept out of

consideration by the SLAO. The learned Counsel submitted that though

the Reference Court in its judgment has referred to the decision given

by this Court in First Appeal No. 2716/2008, while determining the

amount of enhanced compensation, has totally ignored that, in the said

appeal this court has confirmed the decision of the Reference Court

awarding the compensation to the lands involved in the said matters @

Rs. 30,000/ per acre for dry land. The learned Counsel submitted that

since the impugned judgment is delivered without proper appreciation

of the evidence on record, the same deserves to be quashed and set

aside. The learned Counsel submitted that the SLAO had properly

determined the market value of the acquired lands and there was no

reason for the Reference Court to cause any interference in the award

so passed under Section 11 of the Act.

8.       The learned Counsel in order to support the contentions
                                 5 of 10              19-FA.948.2014



raised by him, relied upon the following judgments,

     a)   2011 AIR SCW 3582 – Trishala Jain & anr Vs. State of
          Uttaranchal and anr;
     b)   (2011)1 SCC 330 – The Special Dy.Collector, Land
          Acquisition CMDA Vs. J.Sivaprakasam and Ors.
     c)   AIR 1983 Bom.313 – State           of   Maharashtra      Vs.
          Vishwanathrao Parshuram Mali;
     d)   AIR 2004 SC 1179 – Panna Lal Ghosh Vs. Land Acquisition
          Collector;
     e)   2013 AIR SCW 4591, Ramanlal Deochand Shah and anr. vs.
          State of Maharashtra and Anr.


9.        As against it, Shri B.N.patil, learned Counsel appearing for

the original claimants in all these matters, submitted that the Reference

Court has failed in awarding a just and fair compensation to the

claimants. The learned Counsel submitted that the sale instance

brought on record by the claimants vide Exh.23, was perfectly

comparable with the lands which are the subject matter in the present

appeals. The learned counsel submitted that the land which was the

subject matter of Exh.23 was admeasuring 1 hectare and 35 Ares and

was sold by a registered sale deed executed on 31st January, 1991 for

the consideration of Rs.1,95,000/. The learned counsel submitted that

the said land was thus sold @ Rs. 1,44,400/ per hectare. The learned

counsel submitted that the subject lands were acquired vide the

notification issued on 1.10.1992, i.e. after the period of about two

years or the execution of the sale deed at Exh. 23. The learned counsel

submitted that as has come on record the sale deed of the said land,
                                6 of 10              19-FA.948.2014



though was executed on 31st January, 1991, the agreement of sale

pertaining to the said land was entered into in the year 1990. The

learned counsel submitted that in such circumstances, in face, the price

which was received to the land involved in Exhibit-23 was liable to be

enhanced at least by 20% and the said rate ought to have been held as

a basis for determination of the market value of the acquired lands.

The learned Counsel submitted that the Reference Court has caused

injustice to the claimants by determining the market value much less

than the price received to the said land involved in Exh.23. The learned

counsel submitted that in such circumstances, the claimants are

entitled for enhancement in the amount of compensation as awarded

by the Reference Court and the same may be appropriately enhanced

and the awards be accordingly modified.

10.       Learned AGP appearing for the respondent submitted that in

view of the earlier decision in First Appeal No.2716/2008, with

connected appeals, appropriate orders may be passed since the lands

which were involved in the said appeal were also acquired for Masalga

Medium project.

11.       I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by

learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. I have carefully

perused the common impugned Judgment and Award. First I would

like to refer to the judgment delivered by this Court in First Appeal
                                  7 of 10             19-FA.948.2014



No.2716/2008 with the connected First Appeals.          Indisputably, the

lands which were the subject matter in the said appeals were also

acquired for the Masalga Medium project. As is revealing from the

discussion made in the said judgment, the said lands were acquired,

vide notification under Section 4 of the Act published on 4th August,

1984. In the said matters, the Reference Court had enhanced the

amount of compensation by determining the market value of the said

lands @ Rs.30,000/ per acre in respect of the dry land and Rs.40,000/

per acre in respect of irrigated lands.

12.       The learned Reference Court has referred to the decision in

First Appeal No.2716/2008, however, has not made any more

discussion as about the observations made in the said judgment or

conclusions recorded by this Court in the said judgment. Admittedly,

the decision of this court in the aforesaid appeals has not been

challenged before the Hon'ble Apex court and thus has attained the

finality. It appears to me that the said judgment, thus, can be a base for

determining the market value of the acquired lands in the present

appeals. However, I would discuss the said aspect bit later. Before that I

would prefer to discuss the evidence which was adduced before the

Reference Court and how the same has been appreciated by the

Reference Court.

13.       It was the contention of the learned counsel appearing for
                                8 of 10             19-FA.948.2014



the acquiring body that the same has not been properly appreciated by

the Reference Court and pointing out some observations in the

judgments relied upon by him, it was sought to be canvassed by him

that the Reference Court has erred in determining the amount of

compensation in the impugned Judgment and Award. Perusal of the

common impugned Judgment and Award reveals that though there

were more than one sale instances placed on record by the claimants,

the Reference Court has preferred to rely upon the sale instance at

Exh.23. In para 24 to 27, the Reference Court has elaborately discussed

the reasons for relying upon the said sale instance. By taking into

account plus and minus factors, by comparing the land which was the

subject matter of Exh. 23 with the acquired lands, the Reference Court

has observed that the land which was the subject matter of Exh.23,

though was sold by registered sale deed on 31st January, 1991, the

agreement of sale pertaining to the said land was of the year 1990 and,

therefore, the Court has given increase in the said price @ 10% per

year. As held by the Reference Court, as per the value received for the

said land, the market rate on the date of notification was notionally

coming to Rs.69,910/ per acre. The Reference Court has further

observed that since the land which was the subject matter of Exh. 23

was purchased by son of one of the claimants in the present matter and

since it was adjoining land to the land owned by the said person, some

deductions were liable to be made from the value received to the said
                                 9 of 10             19-FA.948.2014



land.   The learned Reference Court has, therefore, by making

appropriate deductions, determined the market value of the acquired

lands @ Rs.1,00,000/ per hectare.

14.       After having considered the entire evidence on record and

the reasons assigned by the Reference Court, it does not appear to me

that the Reference Court has committed any error in determining the

market value of the acquired lands. From the evidence on record it is

difficult to accept the contention of the acquiring body that the

Reference Court has given unreasonable hike in the market value of the

acquired lands.

15.       Moreover, as has been noted by me earlier, for the lands

which were acquired for same Masalga Medium project in the year

1984, the amount of compensation was determined @ Rs.30,000/ per

acre for non-irrigated land and @ Rs. 40,000/ per acre for irrigated

land and this Court in First Appeal No.2716/2008 has confirmed the

judgment and award passed in that regard by the Reference Court.

16.       Considering the aforesaid aspects, it does not appear to me

that the Reference Court has committed any error in determining the

market value of the acquired lands @ Rs.40,000/ per acre. I, therefore,

do not see any merit in the appeals filed by the acquiring body.

17.       In view of the finding recorded by me that the Reference

Court has correctly determined the market value of the acquired lands,
                                            10 of 10             19-FA.948.2014



          all the present appeals deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly

          dismissed, however, without any order as to cost. Pending civil

          application, if any, stands disposed of.

                                             (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

Tauseef