Bombay High Court
RAJARAM SAYAJI MAHAJAN (DIED) THR LRS DWARKABAI DIED THR LRS DEVIDAS AND ORSversusTHE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, JALGAON AND ORS
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
All connected land acquisition references must be valued uniformly at Rs.175 per square metre, rejecting the acquiring body's claim for a 65% deduction and allowing the claimants' cross‑objections to the extent of uniform enhancement.
Summary
The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC) appealed the awards of three land acquisition references concerning the construction of a bus stand and residential quarters at Erandol, alleging that the Reference Court should have applied a 65% deduction in market value. The claimants, whose representatives filed cross‑objections, contended that the lands formed part of the same project and should be valued uniformly using the same sale instances, rejecting the higher deduction. The court examined the nature, location, and sale evidence, finding that the Reference Court had correctly applied a 25% deduction and that maintaining three different rates was unjustified. It rejected the acquiring body's contention for a larger deduction and held that all three references should be valued at Rs.175 per square metre. Consequently, the first appeals were dismissed, one cross‑objection was dismissed, and the remaining cross‑objections were partly allowed, modifying the awards to the uniform rate and granting statutory benefits and interest. The court also ordered adjustment of already paid amounts and discharge of any securities.
Issues considered
- Whether different market‑value rates can be maintained for lands acquired for the same project under separate notifications.
- Whether a 65% deduction in market value is appropriate instead of the 25% deduction applied by the Reference Court.
- Whether the cross‑objections filed after a delay are maintainable.
- Whether the compensation should be enhanced uniformly to Rs.175 per square metre with consequent statutory benefits and interest.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 11, 18, 28, 34, 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- market value
- compensation enhancement
- deduction percentage
- cross‑objection
- interest under Section 28
- statutory benefits
- uniform valuation
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:46501
1-FA-1000-2007.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
1 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1000 OF 2007
M.S.S.T. Mahamandal, Mumbai
Through Controller, S.T. Mahamanda, Jalgaon
VERSUS
Ashok Dagadu Mahajan And Another
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 279 OF 2026 IN FA/1000/2007
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10275 OF 2026 IN X-OBJ/279/2026
Ashok Dagadu Mahajan
VERSUS
M.S.S.T. Mahamandal, Mumbai And Another
……
76 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2990 OF 2008
M.S.R.T.C. Mumbai,
Through Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Jalgaon
VERSUS
Special Land Acquisition Opfficer, No.1 and Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5205 OF 2026 IN FA/2990/2008
Rajaram Sayaji Mahajan (Died)
Through L.Rs. Dwarkabai (Died) Through L.Rs.Devidas And Others
VERSUS
Special Land Acquisition Officer -1 Jalgoan And Others
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 86 OF 2024 IN FA/2990/2008
Rajaram Sayaji Mahajan (Died)
Through L.Rs. Dwarkabai (Died) Through L.Rs.Devidas And Others
VERSUS
Special Land Acquisition Officer -1 Jalgoan And Others
AND
1-FA-1000-2007.odt
2
77 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1721 OF 2008
M.S.R.T.C. Mumbai,
Through Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Jalgaon
VERSUS
Special Land Acquisition Officer, No.1 and Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5221 OF 2026 IN FA/1721/2008
Rajaram Sayaji Mahajan (Died)
Through L.Rs. Dwarkabai (Died) Through L.Rs.Devidas And Others
VERSUS
Special Land Acquisition Officer -1 Jalgoan And Others
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 87 OF 2024 IN FA/1721/2008
Rajaram Sayaji Mahajan (Died)
Through L.Rs. Dwarkabai (Died) Through L.Rs.Devidas And Others
VERSUS
Special Land Acquisition Officer -1 Jalgoan And Others
……
Mr. A.B. Dhongade, Advocate for Appellant - MSRTC in all FAs
Mr. Vijay Patil, Advocate for for Claimant in Fa/1007/2007 and
X-Obj/279/2026
Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate for Claimants in X-Obj/86/2024, X-Obj/87/2024,
FA/2990/2008, and FA/1721/2008
Mr. S.S. Dande, Mr. A.M. Phule, and Mr. A.D. Wange, AGPs for State in
respective matters
……
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 28 SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
ORDER IN CA/10275 OF 2026 :
1. The present Civil Application is filed for bringing the legal
representatives of deceased Ashok Dagadu Mahajan on record, as stated in
paragraph No.5 of the application, by condoning the delay of 3375 days and
for setting aside the abatement, if any.
1-FA-1000-2007.odt
3
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the Civil Application
deserves to be allowed. The same is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer
clauses (B) to (E). Amendment to be carried out forthwith.
ORDER IN FIRST APPEALS AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS:
3. Heard learned counsel Mr. A.B. Dhongade for the Maharashtra State
Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC)/Acquiring Body, learned counsel Mr.
A.B. Kale and Mr. Vijay B. Patil for the respective claimants and learned
AGPs Mr. S.S. Dande, Mr. A.M. Phule and Mr. A.D. Wange for the State.
4. These First Appeals and Cross-Objections arise out of the Judgments
and Awards dated 26.02.2007 and 06.12.2007 passed by the learned
Reference Court at Jalgaon in the Land Acquisition References mentioned
below. Since the matters arise out of acquisition undertaken for the same
project, namely, construction of S.T. Stand and residential quarters at
Erandol, and involve a common issue regarding determination of market
value, they are being considered together. The relevant particulars are as
under:
Date of
Sr. X-Obj. No. /
FA No. LAR No. Gat No. Land acquired Judgment &
No. Stamp No.
Award
1007, 11 R; 26.02.2007
1 1000/2007 279 of 2022 1936 of 2005 1008 15R
2 2990/2008 86 of 2024 971 of 2005 1011 29 R 06.12.2007
3 1721/2008 87 of 2024 970 of 2005 1010 P, 23 R;
1011 P, 1 H 69 R 06.12.2007
1012 11 R
1-FA-1000-2007.odt
4
5. In LAR No.1936 of 2005, the notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act") was published on 09.12.1982.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short, "the SLAO") thereafter
passed the Award under Section 11 of the Act on 12.09.1986 and
determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.55/- per
square metre.
6. In LAR Nos.970 and 971 of 2005, the notification under Section 4 of
the Act was published on 23.03.1980. The SLAO passed the Award under
Section 11 of the Act on 12.09.1986. In LAR No.970 of 2005, the market
value was determined at Rs.1,310/- per R treating the land as agricultural
land, whereas in LAR No.971 of 2005, the market value was determined at
Rs.5,500/- per R treating the land as non-agricultural land.
7. The claimants, being dissatisfied with the market value determined
by the SLAO, accepted the compensation under protest and sought
references under Section 18 of the Act.
8. Upon consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Reference
Court enhanced the compensation. In LAR No.1936 of 2005, the learned
Reference Court observed that the claimants would be entitled to the rate of
Rs.20/- per square foot, but since the claim was restricted, compensation
was awarded at the rate of Rs.8/- per square foot.
1-FA-1000-2007.odt
5
9. In LAR Nos.970 and 971 of 2005, the learned Reference Court relied
upon the sale instances at Exhibits 49, 115 and 51, after applying deduction
of 25%, determined the market value at the rate of Rs.115/- per square
metre in LAR No.970 of 2005 and Rs.175/- per square metre in LAR No.971
of 2005, along with consequential statutory benefits.
10. Being dissatisfied with the enhancement granted by the learned
Reference Court, the Acquiring Body has filed the First Appeals. The
claimants have filed Cross-Objections seeking further enhancement.
11. Learned counsel for the Acquiring Body submits that the learned
Reference Court ought to have applied a deduction of 65%, as the acquired
lands were agricultural lands acquired for construction of the bus stand and
residential quarters. He submits that the sale instances relied upon by the
claimants relate to small parcels of land situated in the city of Erandol and,
therefore, cannot be directly compared with the acquired lands, which,
according to him, were situated outside the city. He further submits that the
Reference Court ought to have applied a higher deduction while
determining the market value.
12. As regards the Cross-Objections, learned counsel for the Acquiring
Body submits that there is considerable delay in filing the same and that the
compensation awarded by the SLAO was just and proper. He, therefore,
submits that the First Appeals be allowed and the Cross-Objections be
dismissed.
1-FA-1000-2007.odt
6
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submit that the
acquisition was undertaken for construction of the S.T. Stand as well as
residential quarters for its workers and servants. They submit that though
the acquisitions were covered by different notifications, they formed part of
the same project. It is submitted that the area adjoining the acquired lands
was already developed and had non-agricultural potentiality and, therefore,
the acquired lands were adjacent to the city and cannot be treated as land
situated in an isolated or remote location.
14. Learned counsel for the claimants further submit that the sale
instances at Exhibits 49, 51 and 115 demonstrate the prevailing market
value and that the learned Reference Court ought not to have applied such
deduction as against the claimants. It is also submitted that, having regard
to the fact that the lands were acquired for the same project, there is no
justification for maintaining three different rates merely because two
notifications were issued.
15. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
respective parties and, with their able assistance, have gone through the
impugned Judgments and Awards and the record and proceedings.
16. It is not in dispute that the lands in question were acquired for the
same project at Erandol, namely, construction of the S.T. Stand and
1-FA-1000-2007.odt
7
residential quarters. It is also not in dispute that there were two notifications
under Section 4 of the Act, dated 31.03.1980 and 09.12.1982.
17. In LAR No.971 of 2005, the learned Reference Court relied upon the
sale instance at Exhibit 51 dated 30.12.1981. The said sale relates to City
Survey No.2262 at Erandol, wherein an area of 45.01 square metres was
sold for Rs.9,500/-. After considering the said sale instance and by applying
25% deduction, the learned Reference Court determined the market value at
Rs.175/- per square metre.
18. In LAR No.970 of 2005, the learned Reference Court relied upon the
sale instance at Exhibit 115 and determined the market value at Rs.115/-
per square metre after applying 25% deduction.
19. In LAR No.1936 of 2005, the learned Reference Court considered the
material on record and observed that the claimants would be entitled to
Rs.20/- per square foot, but restricted the award to Rs.8/- per square foot in
view of the claim made before the Reference Court.
20. The principal question, therefore, is whether the market value
determined in the three references can be maintained at three different
rates, when the acquisitions form part of the same project and the claimants
rely upon the same set of sale instances for determination of market value.
1-FA-1000-2007.odt
8
21. The contention of the Acquiring Body that a deduction of 65% ought
to have been applied is not found acceptable. The learned Reference Court
has already considered the nature and location of the acquired lands and
has applied a deduction of 25% while relying upon the sale instances. No
sufficient basis is made out from the material referred to in the impugned
Awards to warrant a further deduction of 65%.
22. It is also relevant that the learned Reference Court, while dealing
with LAR No.971 of 2005, accepted Exhibit 51 as a relevant sale instance
and determined the market value at Rs.175/- per square metre. The
acquisition in the other references is also for the same project. The material
placed before this Court does not justify maintaining a substantially different
rate in the connected references merely on account of the different
notifications.
23. As regards LAR No.1936 of 2005, the learned Reference Court itself
recorded that the claimants were entitled to the rate of Rs.20/- per square
foot, but awarded Rs.8/- per square foot as the claim was restricted. Thus,
the enhancement to Rs.175/- per square metre is in consonance with the
rate of Rs.20/- per square foot assessed by the learned Reference Court
24. In the facts and circumstances of the present matters, I find that the
market value of the acquired lands in LAR Nos.1936 and 970 of 2005 also
deserves to be determined at the rate of Rs.175/- per square metre, so as to
bring the compensation in the connected references on the same footing.
1-FA-1000-2007.odt
9
25. Consequently, the First Appeals filed by the Acquiring Body do not
call for interference. The Cross-Objections filed by the claimants in First
Appeal Nos.1000 of 2007 and 1721 of 2008 deserve to be allowed to the
aforesaid extent, whereas Cross-Objection No.86 of 2024 does not survive
for consideration. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
(i) First Appeal Nos.1000 of 2007, 2990 of 2008 and 1721 of 2008 are
dismissed.
(ii) Cross-Objection No.86 of 2024 is dismissed.
(iii) The Cross-Objections filed by the claimants in First Appeal Nos.1000
of 2007 and 1721 of 2008 are partly allowed.
(iv) The Judgment and Award dated 26.02.2007 passed in LAR No.1936
of 2005 and the Judgment and Award dated 06.12.2007 passed in LAR
No.970 of 2005 are modified to the extent that the claimants therein shall
be entitled to compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.175/- per
square metre.
(v) The Judgment and Award dated 06.12.2007 passed in LAR No.971
of 2005 shall stand confirmed to the extent it grants compensation at the
rate of Rs.175/- per square metre.
(vi) The claimants shall be entitled to consequential statutory benefits on
the enhanced compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894.
1-FA-1000-2007.odt
10
(vii) The claimants shall be entitled to interest under Sections 28 and 34
of the Act in accordance with law, including the law laid down by the Full
Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari, 2016
(3) 457.
(viii) The amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be
duly adjusted.
(ix) The appellant-claimants shall pay the deficit court fee on the
enhanced compensation, if any.
(x) The claimants shall not be entitled to statutory benefits and interest
for the period of delay, if any, in accordance with law.
(xi) Except to the aforesaid extent, the remaining part of the Judgments
and Awards passed by the learned Reference Court shall remain unaltered.
(xii) The claimants shall be entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by
the Acquiring Body, together with accrued interest thereon, if not already
withdrawn.
(xiii) Bank Guarantee or solvent security, if any, stands discharged.
(xiv) The modified Awards shall be drawn accordingly.
(xv) Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
S P Rane
Checking your session…