Bombaybench High Court · 2025
Case Details
( 1 ) 34-FA-1482-2014 STMThis order is corrected pursuant to speaking to minutes of order dated 29.09.2025.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD34 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1482 OF 2014Sayed Kasimali Bashirali And OrsVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And Anr.ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 1870 OF 2015The State Of Maharashtra And Anr.VERSUSSayed Kasimali Bashirali And Ors...Mr. Vijay B. Patil, Advocate for Appellant in FA/1482/2014 andRespondent in FA/1870/2015.Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for Appellant State in FA/1870/2015 andRespondent in FA/1482 of 2014. ...CORAM:KISHORE C. SANT, J.DATE:8th SEPTEMBER 2025.PC :-1.Heard Mr. Patil, the learned Advocate for the appellants andlearned AGP for Respondent-State. The matter is taken up for finaldisposal as the record is received.2.The appellants have filed appeal seeking enhancement in theEthape
Legal Reasoning
( 2 ) 34-FA-1482-2014 STMThis order is corrected pursuant to speaking to minutes of order dated 29.09.2025.amount of compensation. The reference was partly allowed by thelearned 3rd Civil Judge Senior Division, Latur in LAR No.553/1999 on30th June 2009, granting compensation @ Rs.30 per sq.ft. with statutorybenefits. The appellants have come to this Court praying forcompensation at the rate of Rs.60 per sq.ft. 3.The land of the appellants came to be acquired by the learnedSLAO for the purpose of construction of Administration Building, TahasilOffice, Renapur. The acquired land is 99 R from Gut No.1088 and 18.5Rfrom Gut No.1089. The total land acquired is 1H and 17.5R. Anotification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on4th January 1996. The claimant filed reference under Section 18 of thesaid Act, claiming compensation @ Rs.60 per sq.ft. The learnedReference Court, however, granted rate @ Rs.30 per sq.ft. The appellantsare thus before this Court challenging the impugned judgment andaward. 4.The learned Advocate Mr. Patil, vehemently argued that thelearned Court has failed to appreciate the evidence. The compensationEthape ( 3 ) 34-FA-1482-2014 STMThis order is corrected pursuant to speaking to minutes of order dated 29.09.2025.ought to have been granted @ 60 per sq.ft. There was sufficientevidence produced before the Court. However, the same is notconsidered. He relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in FirstAppeal No. 874 of 2009 in the case of Sayed Matinali Ilahi Baksha andOrs. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. He submits that the land ofSayed Matinali is also acquired from the same project. In the FirstAppeal, he was given the compensation @ 60 per sq. ft. by deducting20% amount towards development of land. This judgment in the case ofSayed Matinali is based on the Division Bench judgment of this Courtpassed in First Appeal No.444 of 2010 in the case of SharadShankarappa Hadkude and Ors. Vs. The State and Ors. with connectedmatters. From the award, he points out that the land of Mr. SharadHadkude is acquired from Gut No.1091 and 1092, whereas the land ofthe appellant is acquired from Gut No.1088 and 1089 for the sameproject. He submits that therefore the same rate which is given to SayedMatinali and Sharad Hadkude needs to be granted to the appellant aswell. He further points out that even trees compensation is granted atEthape ( 4 ) 34-FA-1482-2014 STMThis order is corrected pursuant to speaking to minutes of order dated 29.09.2025.much lower rate. The total valuation as per the valuer wasRs.1,24,282/-. However, the same is granted only Rs.70,000/-. Towardsthe valuation of well, the valuer had given the value of Rs.28,639/-. Thesame is granted to Rs.20,000/-. The valuation of cattle shed was shownto be Rs.8,548/-, the court has granted Rs.6,000/-. He thus prays forallowing the appeal by granting compensation @ 60 per sq. feet andtowards fruits trees of Rs.1,24,282/- and the valuation ought to havebeen granted as per the rate given by the valuer. 5.The learned AGP vehemently opposed the appeal. He submits thatthe reference Court has rightly considered all the aspects. The evidenceis properly considered and it is only upon that the rate was rightlygranted to Rs.30 per sq. feet. About trees, well and the cattle shed, hesubmits that there also, the court has rightly done the calculation and nointerference is required. 6.This Court has gone through the impugned judgment and award.This Court does not find any infirmity or illegality so far as granting thecompensation towards fruit bearing trees, well and towards cattle shed.Ethape ( 5 ) 34-FA-1482-2014 STMThis order is corrected pursuant to speaking to minutes of order dated 29.09.2025.So far as compensation of land is concerned, this Court finds that thedivision bench of this Court has already granted rate of Rs.60 per sq. feetin FA/444/2010, the same is also granted in FA/874/2009. This courttherefore does not find any difficulty in accepting the case of theappellant that the appellant also would be entitled to receive the samecompensation at the same rate given to the appellant in First Appeal No.444/2010 and First Appeal No.874/2009. 7.So far as First appeal filed by the State is concerned, for thereasons discussed above, this court does not find any merit in the appealfiled by the State. The appeal filed by the State needs to be dismissed.Hence, the following order:ORDER(i)First Appeal No.1482 of 2014 is partly allowed.(ii)First Appeal No.1870 of 2015 stands dismissed. (iii)The Land Acquisition Reference No.553/1999 stands partlyallowed.Ethape ( 6 ) 34-FA-1482-2014 STMThis order is corrected pursuant to speaking to minutes of order dated 29.09.2025.(iv)The respondents in FA/1482/2014 are directed to pay withdifference amount of compensation to the claimant @ of Rs.60 per sq.feet after deducting the market value of development of land to theextent of 20%.(v)The claimants are entitled to receive 30% solatium on themarket price, 12% increase from the date of notification u/s. 4 i.e.04.01.1996 to the date of award i.e. 31.10.1998.(vi)The respondents No.1 and 2 in FA/1482/2014 are herebydirected to pay to claimants, the interest at the rate of 9% p.m. from04.01.1996 for first year and thereafter, at the rate of 15% p.a. till therealization of the entire amount.(vii)Decree be drawn up accordingly.(viii)The claimant has already withdrawn the amount by giving bankguarantee. Since now the appeal is allowed, the bank guaranteestands discharged.Ethape ( 7 ) 34-FA-1482-2014 STMThis order is corrected pursuant to speaking to minutes of order dated 29.09.2025.(ix)With this, first appeals stand disposed off. (x) Pending civil applications, if any, stand disposed off. [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]Ethape