Bombay High Court
GOVINDRAJ MADHAVRAO CHITRAL AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
Compensation for the acquired land is set at Rs 2,250 per R with applicable statutory benefits, dismissing the acquiring body’s appeal and partly allowing both claimants’ appeals to ensure parity.
Summary
The High Court examined two related appeals concerning land acquired in 1993 for the Bruhat Minor Irrigation Tank project in Jalna district. The acquiring body challenged a 2010 award, while the original claimant contested a 2006 award and later filed a cross‑objection seeking enhanced compensation. The court considered the relevance of five sale instances, noting that only the sale from Sukhapuri (1992) was comparable and pre‑dated the Section 4 notification. Applying a 10% escalation to the market rate derived from that sale, the court fixed compensation at Rs 2,250 per R for the claimants, granting statutory benefits and interest on the enhanced amount but denying interest for the delayed period. The appeal by the acquiring body (FA 1077/2015) was dismissed, the cross‑objection was partly allowed, and the original claimant’s appeal (FA 518/2008) was also partly allowed to ensure parity.
Issues considered
- The appropriate method for valuing acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act
- Whether sale instances predating the Section 4 notification can be used as comparables
- The necessity of applying escalation to the market rate derived from a 1992 sale
- Whether the compensation awarded for trees should be revisited
- Whether parity requires the same compensation rate in both related appeals
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation valuation
- escalation factor
- parity of awards
- tree compensation
- civil appeal
- cross objection
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:43629
FA 518/08 & Ors.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
16 FIRST APPEAL NO. 518 OF 2008
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5334 OF 2019 IN FA/518/2008
BHASKAR GANGARAM HISALKAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 121 OF 2022
IN FA/1077/2015
GOVINDRAJ MADHAVRAO CHITRAL AND ANR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
…
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1077 OF 2015
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, JALNA
VERSUS
GOVINDRAJ MADHAVRAO CHITRAL AND OTHERS
…
Advocate for Appellant/claimants/X-objector in respective matters : Ms.
Monika U. Boldhane h/f. Mr. H.V. Tungar, Mr. A.B. Kale
AGP for Respondent/State in respective matters : Mr. S.S. Dande
Advocate for Respondent/acquiring body/appellant in respective matters :
Mr. B.R. Survase & Mr. Sudhir G. Bhalerao
…
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
Dated : September 22, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. As the acquisition proceedings are initiated in the year 1993, heard
finally with the consent of learned counsel for respective parties.
2. By the FA No. 1077/2015, the acquiring body assails the judgment
and award dated 29.4.2010 passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Jalna in
LAR No. 75/1996. In the above first appeal, claimants have also filed cross
objection bearing No. 121/2022 for enhancement of compensation. First
FA 518/08 & Ors.
2
Appeal No. 518/2008 is filed by the original claimant, assailing the
judgment and award dated 13.3.2006 passed by the learned IV Ad-hoc
Additional District Judge, Jalna which came to be dismissed.
3. In First Appeal No. 1077/2015, the land of the claimant admeasuring
3 H. 35 R. from Gat No. 122 situated at Kukadgaon, Taluka Ambad, Dist.
Jalna was acquired for construction of Bruhat M.I. Tank, Sukhapuri, Taluka
Ambad, District Jalna. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act was published on 9.12.1993. The possesion was taken over by the
acquiring body on 14.5.1996. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO)
has declared the award on 7.3.1996 and has granted compensation at the
rate of Rs.420/- per R. for land admeasuring 2 H. 1 R. (excluding 1 H. DV
land) and has also granted compensation towards trees.
4. In First Appeal No. 518/2008, the land of the claimant admeasuring 4
H. 94 R. from Gat No. 122 situated at village Sukhapuri, Taluka Ambad,
Dist. Jalna was acquired for the same project, by same notification.
5. As far as FA No. 1077/2015 is concerned, the acquiring body assails
the judgment and award of the reference court mainly on the ground that
the referene court has granted comepnsation for acquired trees. Mr. Sudhir
Bhalerao, learned counsel for acquiring body submits that as regards
valuation of the land is concerned, claimants relied upon five sale instances
and out of that one sale instance from village Kukadgaon is executed after
section 4 notification. As far as other sale instances are concerned, one is
from Sukhapuri, one is from Tirthapuri, one is from Tad Hadgaon and last is
from Ambad. He submits that considering the sale instances, the learned
reference court has rightly determined the compensation at the rate of
Rs.1800/- per R. As regards acquired trees are concerned, he submits that
FA 518/08 & Ors.
3
the reference court has granted rate after considering the number of trees
as was mentioned by the SLAO. Therefore, he submits that the reference
court ought to have discarded the entire report. When a specific query was
made about the valuation done by the reference court in respect of trees is
concerned, he accepted that whatever rate granted by the reference court is
not disputed. Therefore, as far as valuation done by the reference court in
respect of trees is concerned, in view of the acceptance of valuation of trees
by Mr. Sudhir Bhalerao done by the reference court, this Court is not
required to consider the said issue and the order passed by the reference
court need not be gone into that aspect.
6. As regards valuation towards land is concerned, before the reference
court the claimants have relied upon five sale instances, at Exhs. 32, 33 &
41 to 43. First sale instance is in respect of land from village Sukhapuri by
which 40 R. land from Gat No. 84 was sold for Rs.19,000/- on 22.9.1992.
Second sale instance is in respect of land from village Kukadgaon, by which
58 R. land was sold from Gat No. 2 for Rs.50,000/- on 5.4.1997, which is
after section 4 notification. Third sale instance is in respect of land from
village Tirthapuri, by which 40 R. land from Gat No. 41 was sold for
Rs.75,000/- on 22.6.1993. Fourth sale instance is in respect of land from
village Tad Hadgaon by which 6 R. land from Gat No. 528 was sold for
Rs.18,000/- on 29.5.1990. Lastly the first sale instance is in respect of land
from village Ambad, by which 40 R. land from Gat No. 28/2 was sold for
Rs.30,000/- on 25.9.1989.
7. After considering the above sale instances, it appears that except the
sale instance in respect of land from village Kukadgaon, Exh. 33, the other
sale instances are exectuted before section 4 notification. As per the sale
FA 518/08 & Ors.
4
instance in respect of land from village Sukhapuri, Exh. 32, is concered, 40
R. land was sold for Rs.19,000/- on 22.9.1992. All the counsel have not
disputed the fact that the lands from village Sukhapuri in the present
matters were acquired for the above project and therefore, in my view, the
sale instance from village Sukhapuri can be considered as comparable sale
instance. Once the sale instance from the same village is available, the
learned reference court ought to have considered the same for
determination of market value of the acquired lands and determine the
compensation as the sale instance of land from village Sukhapuri. It appeas
that the learned reference court has granted compensation at the rate of
Rs.1800/- per R. by applying certain guess work without recording any
finding and the reference court has not considered the sale instance from
village Sukhapuri. As per that sale instance the rate comes to Rs.2045.50
per R. Therefore, by rounding it off, this Court holds that the claimants in
the above case are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of
Rs.2050/- per R. for their acquired land. However, as the sale instance is of
the year 1992, the claimants are entitled to 10% escalation. Therefore, I
hold that the claimants are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of
Rs.2250/- per R. In view of the above, FA No. 1077/2015 filed by the
acquiring body needs to be dismissed and the Cross Objection No.
121/2022 filed by the claimants need to be allowed.
8. As far as FA No. 518/2008 is concerned, in that case, the learned
reference court has dismissed the reference by holding that the claimants
failed to lead evidence in the matter. Once this Court enhances
compensation in FA No. 1077/2015, which arises out of same notification,
from the same village and for the same project, considering the sale
FA 518/08 & Ors.
5
instance Exh. 32 which is in respect of land from village Sukhapuri, I hold
that in the interest of justice, to maintain the parity, the claimants in FA No.
518/2008 is also entitled to receive the compensation as granted in FA No.
1077/2015. Hence, the FA No. 518/2008 needs to be partly allowed. Hence,
I pass the following order.
ORDER
(i) FA No. 1077/2015 filed by the acquiring body is dismissed and Cross
Objection No. 121/2022 filed by the claimant is partly allowed.
(ii) FA No. 518/2008 is also partly allowed.
(iii) The claimants are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of
Rs.2250/- per R. for their acquired lands.
(iv) The claimants are entitled to receive all the statutory benefits
including interest on enhanced amount as per the provisions of Land
Acquisition Act.
(v) The claimant to pay deficit court fees, if any, on enhanced amount.
(vi) The claimants are not entitled to receive interest for delayed period, if
any, i.e. from the date of award of reference court till today.
(vii) The impugned judgment and award of the reference court is modified
accordingly.
(viii) Rest of the award shall remain unaltered.
(ix) Pending Civil Application, if any, stands disposed of.
( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )
ssc/
Checking your session…