High Court
Legal Reasoning
1 FA 2201-2016.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO. 2201 OF 2016The Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment Corporation,Through the Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Beed,Head Quarter Ambajogai, Dist. Beed.. AppellantVersus1.Shrikrishna s/o Laxman Gholve,Age : 30 years, Occu. : Agriculture.2.Dattatray s/o Laxman Gholve,Died through L.Rs.2-A)Pragati Dattatraya GholveAge : 34 years, Occu. : Household.2-B)Tanvi D/o Dattatraya GholveAge : 13 years, Occu. : Education.2-C)Arnav s/o Dattatraya GholveAge : 9 years, Occu. : Education.(L.Rs. No. 2B and 2C are minorUnder guardianship of their realmother i.e. Respondent No. 2-A)3.Sheshabai Laxman Gholve,Age : 46 years, Occu. : Agriculture.All R/o. Sarni, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.4.The State of Maharashtra,Through Collector, Beed... Respondents 1 of 18 2 FA 2201-2016.odtWITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11160 OF 2016 IN FA/2201/2016Shrikrishna S/o Laxman Gholve and others.. ApplicantsVersusThe Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment Corporation throughthe Executive Engineer and another.. RespondentsWITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9000 OF 2018 IN FA/2201/2016Shrikrishna s/o Laxman Gholve and others.. ApplicantsVersusThe State of Maharashtra and another.. Respondents ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 830 OF 2025The Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment Corporation,Through the Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Beed,Head Quarter Ambajogai, Dist. Beed.. AppellantVersus1.Dattatray s/o Wamanrao Bhange,Age : 54 years, Occu. : Agriculture.R/o. Sarni, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.2.State of Maharashtra,Through Collector, Beed. .. Respondents 2 of 18 3 FA 2201-2016.odt ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 1286 OF 2016The Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment Corporation,Through the Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Beed,Head Quarter Ambajogai, Dist. Beed.. AppellantVersus1.Pralhad s/o Namdev Thombre,Age : 56 years, Occu. : Agriculture.2.Uddhav s/o Namdev Thombre,Age : 49 years, Occu. : Agriculture.3.Suresh s/o Namdev Thombre,Age : 46 years, Occu. : Agriculture.4.Arun Namdeo Thombare (Died)Through L.Rs.4-A)Kamal w/o Arun ThombareAge : 50 years, Occu. : Household.4-B)Sushma d/o Arun Thombare @Rajmati Anant GholveAge : 35 years, Occu. : Household.4-C)Mahadeo s/o Arun ThombareAge : 33 years, Occu. : Agri.4-D)Pushpa Ashok Kedar Age : 29 years, Occu. : Housewife.4-E)Alka Laxman DhasAge : 26 years, Occu. : Housewife.4-F)Sahdev s/o Arun ThombareAge : 24 years, Occu. : Agri. 3 of 18 4 FA 2201-2016.odtAll R/o Sarni, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.5.Rajendra s/o Uddhav Thombre,Minor U/G of MotherKushivartabai w/o Uddhav ThombreAge : 49 years, Occupation : Agriculture,6.Mahadeo s/o Arun Thombre,Minor U/G of MotherKamalbai w/o Arun ThombreAge : 44 years, Occupation : Agriculture,All R/o. : Sarni, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.7.The State of Maharashtra,Through Collector, Beed... RespondentsWITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8215 OF 2018 IN FA/1286/2016Pralhad s/o Namdev Thombre and others.. ApplicantsVersusThe State of Maharashtra and another .. Respondents ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 2199 OF 2016The Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment Corporation,Through the Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Beed,Head Quarter Ambajogai, Dist. Beed.. AppellantVersus1.Bhaskar s/o Namdeo Gholve,Age : Major, Occu. : Agriculture. 4 of 18 5 FA 2201-2016.odt2.Prabhakar s/o Namdeo Gholve,Age : Major, Occu. : Agriculture.3.Shubham s/o Dinkar Gholve,Minor U/G of MotherNandabai w/o Dinkar GholveAge : Major, Occu. : Agriculture.R/o. Sarni, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.4.The State of Maharashtra,Through Collector, Beed. .. RespondentsWITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9005 OF 2018 IN FA/2199/2016 Bhaskar s/o Namdeo Gholve and others.. ApplicantsVersusThe State of Maharashtra and another.. Respondents ANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 2202 OF 2016The Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment Corporation,Through the Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Beed,Head Quarter Ambajogai, Dist. Beed.. AppellantVersus1.Pralhad s/o Namdev Thombre,Age : 56 years, Occu. : Agriculture.2.Uddhav s/o Namdev Thombre,Age : 49 years, Occu. : Agriculture. 5 of 18 6 FA 2201-2016.odt3.Suresh s/o Namdev Thombre,Age : 46 years, Occu. : Agriculture.4.Arun Namdeo Thombare (Died)Through L.Rs.4-A)Kamal w/o Arun ThombareAge : 50 years, Occu. : Household.4-B)Sushma d/o Arun Thombare @Rajmati Anant GholveAge : 35 years, Occu. : Household.4-C)Mahadeo s/o Arun ThombareAge : 33 years, Occu. : Agri.4-D)Pushpa Ashok Kedar Age : 29 years, Occu. : Housewife.4-E)Alka Laxman DhasAge : 26 years, Occu. : Housewife.4-F)Sahdev s/o Arun ThombareAge : 24 years, Occu. : Agri.All R/o Sarni, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.5.The State of Maharashtra,Through Collector, Beed. .. RespondentsWITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9001 OF 2018 IN FA/2202/2016 Pralhad s/o Namdev Thombre and others.. ApplicantsVersusThe State of Maharashtra and another.. Respondents 6 of 18
Legal Reasoning
7 FA 2201-2016.odtANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 2203 OF 2016The Godavari Marathwada IrrigationDevelopment Corporation,Through the Executive Engineer,Minor Irrigation Division, Beed,Head Quarter Ambajogai, Dist. Beed.. AppellantVersus1.Dattatray s/o Dnyanoba Gholve,Age : 39 years, Occu. : Agriculture.2.Lankabai w/o Dnyanoba Gholve,Age : 74 years, Occu. : Agriculture.Both R/o. : Sarni, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.3.The State of Maharashtra,Through Collector, Beed. .. RespondentsWITHCIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9002 OF 2018 IN FA/2203/2016Dattatraya s/o Dnyanoba Gholve and another.. ApplicantsVersusThe State of Maharashtra and another.. Respondents Mr. A. M. Gaikwad, Advocate for the Appellants.Smt. A. S. Deshmukh, AGP for Respondents/State.Mr. D. R. Jaybhar, Advocate for Respondents – claimants. CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J.Date on which reserved for judgment : 23rd July, 2025.Date on which judgment pronounced : 24th September, 2025. 7 of 18 8 FA 2201-2016.odtJUDGMENT :- .All these appeals are arising out of common judgment andaward passed by the learned Reference court and are being takenup together. The judgment and award impugned in these appealsis passed by the learned Adhoc District Judge – 2, Ambajogaidated 08.01.2014 in respective L.A.Rs. filed by the presentrespondents – original claimants. By way of impugned judgmentand award the learned Trial Judge has enhanced the amount ofcompensation towards lands and the trees as given in the chartbelow :LAR No.Acquired PropertyNet PayableRs.LandTreesLand Gat/Sy. No.Total area acquired H – R.Name of treeNo. of trees(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)128 of 2010334-01Mango93025477Jujube160Pomegranate27342-78-350-26360-12123 of 2010340-601604842Jujube330/100-1022/2B0-89Nilgiri358 8 of 18 9 FA 2201-2016.odtMango5Tamarind13126 of 20107/A0-40180660Jujube8Custard apple10160-1462 of 201310ETeak wood183600063 of 20134/10-37954602.The acquiring body is thus before this Court mainlychallenging the enhancement in the amount of compensation andon the ground that the learned Trial Judge has committed an errorin awarding compensation towards trees. 3.The facts in short are that, the lands of the claimants cameto be acquired for construction of percolation tank. The lands aretaken from village Sarni, Taluka Kaij, District Beed. The awardcame to be passed on 26.12.2006 vide acquisition proceeding No.LNQ/CR/2/2003. Possession was already taken on 19.07.2003.The total land acquired is 97 H and 15 R. The learned S.L.A.O.awarded the rate of Rs. 650, 750, 920 and 1015 per R dependingupon the classification of the lands. 4.The claimants being aggrieved by the rate awarded by the 9 of 18 10 FA 2201-2016.odtlearned S.L.A.O. filed references under section 18 of the LandAcquisition Act. It is the case of the claimants that, thecompensation is not fair and adequate. The learned S.L.A.O. haswrongly done classification of the lands. The lands would fetchthe price at the rate of Rs. 4000/- per R i.e. Rs. 4,00,000/- per H.and the compensation for trees as per the report submitted byHorticulture expert. Common evidence was laid in land referenceNo. 128/2010. They produced sale instances at Exh. 21 to 24. Insupport of their claim towards trees compensation they examinedGovernment approved valuer. On the basis of evidence andmaterial on record the learned Reference Court came toconclusion that the compensation awarded by the learned S.L.A.O.is grossly inadequate and granted compensation at the enhancedrate. The rate awarded by the learned Reference Court isRs. 3500/- per R. The learned Court further directed to grant theinterest under sections 23 (1)(a), 28 and 34 from the date ofpossession i.e. from 19.07.2003.5.The learned advocate Mr. Gaikwad for the appellantsvehemently argued that, the learned Reference Court has erred inenhancing the amount of compensation. The valuer’s report is 10 of 18 11 FA 2201-2016.odtwrongly accepted by the Court. The rate of lands was determinedby considering the lands to be orchard lands and thus, there wasno question of granting separate compensation towards trees inview of judgment in the case of Ambya Kalya Mhatra (D) By L.Rs.And Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2011 AIR SCW5749. The multiplier is also wrongly applied. The capitalization iswrongly done. The learned Reference Court has committed anerror in granting interest from the date of possession which shouldhave been granted from the date of award i.e. 26.12.2006 in viewof the judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. KailashShiva Rangari reported in 2016 (3) Mh.L.J 457. He furthersubmits that, the valuation expert admitted that, while calculatingthe price of the tress, he used Mirams table. The valuer’s report isprepared on the basis of visit to the land. While giving visit he didnot issue a notice to the acquiring body. The learned advocateinvited attention of this Court that even the date of notificationunder section 4 is wrongly taken as 09.12.2004 which is in fact23.03.2005. He submits that, the valuation of the land ought tohave been Rs. 3000/- per R which is wrongly granted Rs. 3500/-per R. He thus prays that the impugned judgment and award 11 of 18 12 FA 2201-2016.odtdeserves to be quashed and set aside by confirming the rateawarded by the learned S.L.A.O. The interest under section 23(1)(a), 28 and 34 be given from the date of award and not from thedate of possession. 6.The learned advocate for the respondents – originalclaimants vehemently argued that, the learned Reference Courthas rightly granted the rate. The learned S.L.A.O. had arbitrarilydecided the rate of the land without taking into consideration therate prevalent in the market in the village at the relevant time.The sale instances show that the land was sold at much higherrate i.e. Rs. 4000/- per R. Considering that, the rate should begranted by adding 10% enhancement each year. He justifies theGovernment Valuer’s report. So far as trees are concerned, hesubmits that, some of the first appeals arising out of the sameacquisition proceedings have already been dismissed byconfirming the judgment of the learned Reference Court. Hesubmits that, the learned Court has rightly granted statutorybenefits from the date of possession. The claimants have lost theirland from the date of possession and are deprived the income ofthe land from the said date by relying upon various judgments 12 of 18 13 FA 2201-2016.odtwhich will be discussed in this judgment. 7.The learned advocate for the appellants relies upon thejudgment in the case of Navanath & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtrareported in 2009 (4) AIR Bom R 492. Much emphasis are givenby the learned advocate for the appellants on this judgment withrespect to his submission about determination of compensation ofthe lands on the basis of capitalization in respect of the fruitbearing tress. 8.His further reliance is on the judgment in the case of SpecialLand Acquisition Officer, Davangere Vs. P. Veerabhadarappareported in AIR 1984 SC 774. In this judgment also, the Hon’bleApex Court has considered that the multiplier to be adopted forthe fruit bearing trees should be eight.9.The first point about the rate, the learned Trial Courtconsidered Exh. 21, 22, 23 and 24 i.e. sale instances relied uponby the parties. The sale deed Exh. 21 is in respect of 34 R landthat was sold for Rs. 1,25,000/-. It is dated 04.09.2002. The ratethus comes to Rs. 3676/- per R. The second sale instance is Exh. 13 of 18 14 FA 2201-2016.odt22 wherein, 20 R land was sold for an amount of Rs. 80,000/-.The rate come to Rs. 4000/- per R. The said sale deed is dated16.02.2004. Both the sale instances are from the same village.This Court finds that, the learned Court while deciding thereferences has rightly considered the value of the land to beRs. 3500/- per R. It is considered that the sale instances are inrespect of small pieces of lands and therefore, the considerationwas more. In fact, this Court finds that, if the date of award isseen, it is in 2006. The sale instance Exh. 22 is of February 2004.If 10% rise is given every year, then considering that there is gapof 1.5 years between the sale transaction Exh. 22 and the award.There ought to have been increase in the value to the extent of15% as held in the judgment in the case of Mehrawal KhewajiTrust (Regd.) Faridkot and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors.reported in AIR 2012 SC 2721.10.In the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (supra), the Hon’bleApex Court has held that, when there are multiple sale instances,then highest comparable exemplar should be considered. It isheld that the method of drawing average of various sale deeds is 14 of 18 15 FA 2201-2016.odtnot to be adopted. In the present case, the highest rate shown isRs. 4000/- per R. This Court thus finds that, the rate should betaken as Rs. 4000/- per R. 11.Somewhat similar view is taken in the judgment in the caseof Chindha Fakira Patil (D) through L.Rs. Vs. The Special LandAcquisition Officer reported in AIR 2012 SC 481. The rate wasreduced of the compensation considering the average value of saleinstances. It is held that, no reduction of market value could havebeen done.12. The case of Bhupendra Ramdhan Pawar Vs. VidarbhaIrrigation Development Corporation, Nagpur and Ors. reported inAIR 2021 SC 4393 is also in respect of granting the enhancementconsidering the higher value of the sale instances.13.In the case of Ambya Kalya Mhatra (supra), the Full Benchof the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, the Act does not requireland owner to specify the amount claimed if the objection to theaward is that it is not fair or inadequate. It is the duty of theCourt to grant fair and adequate compensation. Even if the 15 of 18 16 FA 2201-2016.odtamount is not stated or higher amount is claimed, the Court stillhas the power to enhance the amount more than the amountclaimed by the claimant. 14.So far as interest from the date of award or from the date ofpossession is concerned, the respondents relied upon thejudgment in the case of Balwan Singh and Ors. Vs. LandAcquisition Collector and Anr. reported in AIR 2016 SC 1565. [ Itis held that, the claimant shall be entitled to additional interest byway of damages at the rate of 15% per annum from the date ofdispossession till the date of notification under section 4(1) of theAct.15.In the case of Rajiv & Ors. Vs. The Ste of Punjab & Ors. inSpecial Leave Petition (C) No. 25544/2019, in the said case, theHigh Court had reduced the interest on compensation granted bythe learned Reference Court to 6%. The Hon’ble Apex Court heldthat, there is no justification to reduce the rate of interest to 6%from the date of legal possession and consequently, the order ofthe High Court was set aside. 16 of 18 17 FA 2201-2016.odt16.Thus, major points are to be considered in this case areabout the rate awarded by the learned Reference Court, themultiplier to be applied for fruit bearing trees and thirdly, the datefrom which the interest under sections 23(1)(a), 28 and 34 of theAct is to be awarded. 17.In view of the judgments in the cases of Mehrawal KhewajiTrust (supra) and Chindha Fakira Patil (supra), this Court has nothesitation in accepting that the fair and adequate compensation tobe Rs. 4000/- per R plus 15% rise at the rate of Rs. 10% rise peryear would be Rs. 4600/-. The proper rate would be Rs. 4600/-per R. So far as interest part is concerned, now, it is well settled inview of judgment in the case of Kailas Shiva Rangari (supra), theclaimants are entitled to receive interest from the date of awardand not from the date of possession. So far as this is concerned,the Court accepts the submission of the learned advocate Mr.Gaikwad for the appellants that the claimants shall be entitled toreceive the interest from the date of award and not from the dateof possession. 18.In view of the judgment in the case of Ambya Kalya Mhatra 17 of 18 18 FA 2201-2016.odt(supra), this Court does not find any substance in the submissionof the appellants that the separate compensation need not be paidtowards trees. The Court, therefore, finds that the learnedReference Court is right to that extent. In view of the same,following order :ORDER(I)The first appeals stand partly allowed.(II)The claimants shall be entitled to receive the compensationat the rate of Rs. 4600/- per R. The claimants shall be entitled tointerest on the amount from the date of award i.e. 26.12.2006.(III)Fresh award be passed. The amount which is deposited inthis Court by the appellants is permitted to be withdrawn by theclaimants. The enhanced amount be deposited in this Courtwithin a period of twelve (12) weeks from today.(IV)In view of disposal of first appeals, all civil applications alsostand disposed of. ( KISHORE C. SANT, J. ) P.S.B. 18 of 18