Bombay High Court
MANIK SADASHIV SWAMI DIED L.RS. PRASHANT MANIK SWAMIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANJAY A DESHMUKH
Holding
The court set aside the reference court's award and modified compensation to Rs.800 per Are, granting rental compensation and interest as prescribed, thereby partially allowing the cross‑objections and dismissing the State's appeals.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra acquired land in Beed district for a percolation tank, awarding Rs.110‑100 per Are, but the Land Reference Court increased compensation to Rs.556 per Are. The claimants cross‑objected, arguing that the reference court improperly ignored the sale exemplar from an adjacent village and failed to consider the irrigated nature of their land and entitlement to rental compensation. The court examined precedents on using the highest bona‑fide sale exemplar, the relevance of adjacent‑village sales, and the status of irrigated land, and found that a deduction for the small size of the exemplar was appropriate. It held that the claimants were entitled to Rs.800 per Are, rental compensation at 9% p.a., and interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, while rejecting interest for the delayed period. Consequently, the State's appeals were dismissed and the cross‑objections were partly allowed, modifying the award accordingly.
Issues considered
- Whether the Land Reference Court correctly applied the principle of using the highest bona‑fide sale exemplar for determining fair market value.
- Whether a sale exemplar from an adjacent village can be used to fix compensation for the acquired land.
- Whether the irrigated nature of the claimants' land warrants a higher compensation rate.
- Whether the claimants are entitled to rental compensation for the period between possession and notification.
- Whether interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is payable and at what rates.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 28, 34, 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- sale exemplar
- irrigated land
- rental compensation
- interest
- natural justice
- parity principle
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:24232
fa1250.08-
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
943 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1250 OF 2008
The State of Maharashtra and others
VERSUS
Vilas Sadashiv Swami and others
...
A.G.P. for Appellant : Mr. K.N. Lokhande
Advocate for Respondents : Mr. S. D. Jayabhar h/f Mr. D.R. Jayabhar
...
AND
X-OBJECTION NO. 201 OF 2026
IN FA/1250/2008
Vilas Sadashiv Swami and others
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and others
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. S. D. Jayabhar h/f Mr. D.R.
Jayabhar
AGP for Respondents: Mr. K.N. Lokhande
…..
AND
944 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1251 OF 2008
The State of Maharashtra and others
VERSUS
Manik Sadashiv Swami Died L.Rs. Prashant Manik Swami
...
A.G.P. for Appellant : Mr. V.M. Lomte
Advocate for Respondents : Mr. S. D. Jayabhar h/f Mr. D.R.
Jayabhar
…..
AND
X-OBJECTION NO. 202 OF 2026
IN FA/1251/2008
Manik Sadashiv Swami Died L.Rs. Prashant Manik Swami
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. S. D. Jayabhar h/f Mr. D.R.
fa1250.08-
-2-
Jayabhar
AGP for Respondents: Mr. V.M. Lomte
……
CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATED : 17th JUNE, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. The first appeals are preferred by the State whereas the
cross objections are preferred by the claimants against the common
judgment and award passed by the learned Land Reference Court,
Beed, dated 26.07.2005, as per the details shown in the following
chart:-
Sr. First Cross LAR Survey Area Compensati Compensation
No. Appeal No. objection No. No. on awarded Awarded by
No. by LAO (Rs.) Reference
court (Rs.)
1 1250/2008 201/2026 66/93 1084 4 H 27 R 110 per R 556 per R
2 1251/2008 202/2026 328/93 1083 3 H 47 R 100 per R 556 per R
2. The lands of the claimants were acquired for the purpose of
construction of percolation tank at village Yellamghat, Taluka and
District Beed, by notification published in the village Yellamghat on
13.02.1988. The notification under section 4 of the L.A. Act was
issued on 10.10.1987. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the
compensation @ Rs.110/- per Are and Rs.100/- per Are, in the
respective matters whereas the learned Reference court has
awarded the compensation @ Rs.556/- per Are.
fa1250.08-
-3-
3. Learned A.G.P. for the appellants submitted that the
learned Reference Court has not applied judicial mind to determine
the compensation. Learned Reference Court failed to appreciate the
evidence of sale exemplar in its proper perspectives. On the
contrary, the learned Reference Court, relied upon the judgment in
L.A.R. No. 16 of 1987 and awarded the huge amount of
compensation @ Rs.556/- per Are. The principle of parity was
invoked against the claimants as per the provisions of law. The huge
amount of compensation is determined and Exh.53 cannot be relied
upon. The lands in the said sale exemplar belongs to another village
Khardewadi. The reasons and findings of the learned Reference
Court are not legal and correct. The interference is warranted in the
impugned judgment and award. On the contrary, the learned
Reference Court has awarded huge amount of compensation in
absence of the evidence. It is lastly prayed to set aside the
impugned judgment and award, allow the first appeals filed by the
State and dismiss the cross objections filed by he claimants.
4. Learned advocate for the cross-objectors/claimants strongly
opposed the appeals filed by the State and submitted that the learned
Reference Court rightly relied upon the sale exemplar at Exh. 53. In
support of the said submission, learned advocate for the claimants is
fa1250.08-
-4-
relying on the following cases:-
I) Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd) Faridkot and others vs.
State of Punjab and others, AIR 2012 SC 2721 in which in para 15
it is held that :-
“15) It is clear that when there are several exemplars
with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that
the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied, that it is a
bona-fide transaction has to be considered and accepted.
When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a
person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar
land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona-fide
transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a
willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. In our
view, it seems to be only fair that where sale deeds
pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of
the Government, the transaction representing the highest
value should be preferred to the rest unless there are
strong circumstances justifying a different course. It is not
desirable to take an average of various sale deeds placed
before the authority/court for fixing fair compensation.”
II) Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Karigowda and
others, AIR 2010 SC 2322, in which in para 64 it is held as under:-
“64. It is a settled principle of law that lands of
adjacent villages can be made the basis for determining
the fair market value of the acquired land. This principle of
fa1250.08-
-5-
law is qualified by clear dictum of this Court itself that
whenever direct evidence i.e. instances of the same
villages are available, then it is most desirable that the
court should consider that evidence. But where such
evidence is not available court can safely rely upon the
sales statistics of adjoining lands provided the instances
are comparable and the potentiality and location of the
land is somewhat similar. The evidence tendered in
relation to the land of the adjacent villages would be a
relevant piece of evidence for such determination. Once it
is shown that situation and potential of the land in two
different villages are the same then they could be
awarded similar compensation or such other
compensation as would be just and fair.
5. Learned advocate for the claimants submitted that the lands
of the claimants are irrigated lands and the claimants have got
compensation for the well and the pipeline, in the acquired lands.
Therefore, in view of law laid down in the case of Chindha Fakira
Patil (D) through L.Rs. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Jalgaon, AIR 2012 SC 481, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that
even the crops like sugarcane, wheat etc. is not cultivated in the land,
having water facility, it cannot be held that it is not irrigated land. He
therefore, prayed to award the compensation after considering the
nature of lands as irrigated lands.
6. Perused the record and proceedings, particularly, the
fa1250.08-
-6-
evidence of sale exemplar at Exh.53 alongwith the reasons and
findings in the impugned judgment. In the impugned judgment, the
learned Reference Court relied upon the judgment in L.A.R. No.16 of
1987 and the sale exemplar Exh.53 was not relied upon. The said
copy of the said judgment in L.A.R. No.16 of 1987 is not on record.
No any opportunity was given to the claimants at least to argue on
that aspect. The judgment in L.A.R. No.16 of 1987 is against the
principles of natural justice.
7. The Exh. 53 is a sale exemplar pertaining to land situated
at village Khardewadi, which is in the same vicinity of village
Yellamghat. The sale deed at Exh. 53 was executed on 03.06.1987,
whereas the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
was published on 10.10.1987. Thus, the sale transaction was
executed a few months prior to the publication of the notification
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the land
from another village and, therefore, cannot be said to be doubtful. It is
true that the sale exemplar at Exh. 53 relates to land situated in
another village and pertains to a small piece of land admeasuring 13
Ares, which was sold for a consideration of Rs. 13,000/-, i.e. at the
rate of Rs. 1,000/- per Are. However, an appropriate deduction can
be made on that count. If 20% is deducted on account of the small
size of the land covered by the sale exemplar, the ends of justice
fa1250.08-
-7-
would be met. After such deduction, the claimants would be entitled
to compensation at the rate of Rs. 800/- per Are for their acquired
land.
8. As far as the status of nature of the land of the claimants is
concerned, the learned advocate for the claimants pointed out E-
Statement at Exh.50 page 2, in which well is shown in block No.
1084. This shows that the claimant’s lands were having water facility
for which the claimants got compensation for Rs.19,042/- alongwith
the solatium and other statutory benefits. As per the law laid down in
the case of Chindha Fakira Patil (D) through L.Rs. vs. Special
Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, (supra), the claimants are
certainly entitled for double amount by holding that the claimant's
lands were irrigated and it is not necessary that the claimants are
cultivating the crops like sugarcane etc. on the facility of irrigation. All
these aspects were not considered properly by the learned
Reference Court and on the contrary, the learned Reference Court
erred in relying upon the judgment in L.A.R. No. 16 of 1987 and
awarded meager amount of compensation of Rs.556/- per Are, which
is not legal and correct. As observed above, the claimants are
entitled for compensation @ Rs.800/- per Are as the land in sale
exemplar Exh.53 is also irrigated land.
fa1250.08-
-8-
9. In respect of block No.1084, the possession receipt at
Exh.39, the claimants have established that the possession was
taken by the acquiring body on 03.06.1987 and therefore, the
claimants are entitled for rental compensation from 03.06.1987 till the
date of notification issued under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, at village
Yellamghat on 13.02.1988. Learned A.G.P. for the respondent State
opposes for grant of rental compensation for that period. However,
considering the facts of the case, in my view, the claimants are
entitled to rental compensation @ 9% p.a.
10. The impugned judgment deserves to be set aside partly.
The first appeals deserve to be dismissed. The cross objections
deserve to be allowed. Hence, the following order:-
ORDER
I. The First appeals filed by the State are dismissed.
II. The cross objections are partly allowed. The impugned
judgment and awards is set aside and modified as under:-
a) The claimants are entitled to enhanced amount of
compensation @ Rs.800/-per Are, including earlier amount
of compensation with all the statutory benefits like solatium
etc.
b) The claimants shall not be entitled to receive interest for
fa1250.08-
-9-
the delayed period.
c) The claimants shall be entitled to receive interest under
Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, @
9% p.a. for one year from the date of final award of the
L.A.O. and thereafter @ 15% p.a. till the paying or
depositing the remaining amount.
d) The claimants are also entitled to rental compensation as
per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
cases of The State of Maharashtra vs. Maimuma Bano,
(2003) 7 SCC 448 a well as in writ petition No. 6982 of
2013 decided on 07.10.2014.
III. The respondent-State Authority is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount of compensation alongwith all statutory
benefits, in this Court, within six months from today.
IV. If court fee is not sufficiently paid, the claimants shall pay
deficit court fee. On receiving the same, the enhanced
amount of compensation be paid to the claimants.
V. Save and except above modification, impugned judgment
and award shall remain unaltered.
VI. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned
Court and award be drawn up accordingly.
(SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.)
rlj/
Checking your session…