High Court
Legal Reasoning
-1- FA-1252-2017This judgment is corrected in view of the speaking to minutes order dated 25.09.2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO. 1252 OF 20171.Bhagwanrao Gangaram Gite,Age : 72 years, Occu : Nil,2.Narhari Gangaram Gite,Age : 76 years, Occu : Nil,3.Vyankatrao Gangaram Gite,Age : 70 Years, Occu : Agril.,4.Sau. Vijayabai Nathrao Gite,Age : 60 years, Occu : Agril.,5.Nathrao Gangaram Gite,Age : 70 years, Occu : Agril.,6.Gangaram GitteSince deceased through hisLegal heirs.Anantrao Gangaram Gite,Age : 62 years, Occu : Agril.,All R/o. Talni,Tq. Ambajogai, District Beed.… Appellants[Orig. Claimants]Versus1.The State of Maharashtra,Through Collector, Beed.2.The Executive Engineer,(M.I.) E.G.S. Beed.… Respondents…..Mr. S. V. Mundhe, Advocate for the Appellants.Mrs. D. S. Jape, APP for Respondent-State...… -2- FA-1252-2017This judgment is corrected in view of the speaking to minutes order dated 25.09.2025 CORAM :ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. Reserved on: 25.08.2025Pronounced on: 24.09.2025JUDGMENT : 1.Original claimants who are owners of lands situated in gat no.39 of village Poos are primarily dissatisfied by quantum ofcompensation awarded by judgment and order passed by learned 3rdAd hoc District Judge, Ambajogai dated 15.04.2008 in Land ReferenceNo. 177 of 1999 awarding compensation @ Rs.850/- per Are and alsoawarding compensation for mango fruit bearing trees.2.Basic facts giving rise to present appeal are that, on behalf ofrespondent authority issued notification under Section 4 of LandAcquisition Act (for short, “the Act”) regarding acquisition of lands forpercolation tank at village Poos. After notice under Section 4 followedby notice under Section 6, lands of several land-owners came to beacquired on 10.07.1992 and this was followed by passing of awardunder Section 11 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO)awarding compensation @ Rs.375 per Are. Dissatisfied by the same,present appellants preferred above Land Acquisition Reference andsought enhanced compensation i.e. @ Rs2250/- per Are and soughtcompensation for trees @ Rs.1000/-. Respondent acquiring body -3- FA-1252-2017This judgment is corrected in view of the speaking to minutes order dated 25.09.2025appeared and resisted the above Reference and thereby justified therate applied by SLAO and sought to dismiss the Reference. Afterappreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by theparties, learned Reference Court reached to a finding thatcompensation awarded by SLAO is indeed inadequate and therebyawarded enhanced rate of compensation @ Rs.850/- per Are andRs.1700/- for mango trees i.e. vide judgment dated 15.04.2008.3.Feeling aggrieved by the above judgment, appellants havepreferred instant appeal seeking further enhancement by pressing intoservice following grounds ;Firstly, trial court failed to consider and appreciate the correctand existing market value of the land acquired. Secondly, learnedtrial court failed to consider existence of well in the acquired land andland to be thus irrigated one. Thirdly, in spite of availability ofcomparable sale instances and in spite of settled law being that,highest exemplar be considered and applied in cases of compulsoryacquisition, learned Reference Court failed to apply settled law andfinally meager amount has been granted towards compensation formango trees in the acquired land.
Legal Reasoning
-4- FA-1252-2017This judgment is corrected in view of the speaking to minutes order dated 25.09.20254.Apart from keeping written notes of arguments on record,learned counsel would submit that learned Reference Court has failedto appreciate the pleadings and documentary evidence in the form ofsale instances. He pointed out that the land acquired was in thevicinity of area which had high potential and high market value.Moreover, according to him, there was Revenue record in the form of7/12 extract showing existence of well in the gat owned by appellant,thus, demonstrating that land was irrigated one. That, amongstseveral sale instances, unfortunately there is non consideration of saleinstance which was in proximity to the notification under Section 4 ofthe Act. Even permissible rise per year since date of sale instance tillacquisition has also not been considered. Learned counsel seeksreliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case ofMeharawal Khewaji Trust (Registered) Faridkot and others v. State ofPunjab AIR 2012 SC 2721 and seeks enhancement @ Rs.2250/- perAre. 5.In answer to above, learned APP has also, apart from placingwritten notes of arguments, made submissions that learned ReferenceCourt has correctly appreciated the available sale instances Exhibits27 and 28. That, claimants had failed to lead positive evidence toclaim parity and benefits with other adjoining lands. She would point -5- FA-1252-2017This judgment is corrected in view of the speaking to minutes order dated 25.09.2025out that sale instance placed on record was of 1991 and hence it wasnot comparable one. According to her, there was record beforeReference Court suggesting market value of lands ranging fromRs.1000/- to Rs.2000/- per Are and moreover, lands under saleinstances were small piece of land and therefore, Reference Court wasjustified in applying arms chair Rule to ascertain market value whichcame to around Rs.850/- par Are. She also supported the observationsof Hon’ble trial court in para 6 of the judgment and also justifiedcompensation awarded for trees and finally prayed to dismiss theappeal. 6.Heard both sides to their satisfaction. Studied their writtennotes of arguments. As stated above, claimants are primarilydissatisfied by non-consideration of existence of well and resultantly,non-consideration of acquired land to be irrigated and secondly, non-consideration of sale instances in proximity both, in time and place.As stated above, heavy reliance is placed on Exhibit 28 dated28.07.1993; 21.07.1994 and 28.08.1995 and Exhibit 27 dated08.02.1991. In the written notes of arguments, calculations of area,price and approximate market value has been reflected. -6- FA-1252-2017This judgment is corrected in view of the speaking to minutes order dated 25.09.20257.Before touching the merits of above claim, it would beappropriate to discuss settled legal position as regards todetermination of market value for awarding compensation. By seriesof judgments, Hon’ble Apex Court time and again has held thatreliance on comparable sale instances is the best method. Marketprice, is considered as the rate which a willing buyer is ready topurchase from the vendor. In the judgment of Viluben JhalejarContractor (D) by LRs v. State of Gujarat ; MANU/SC/0286/2005 :AIR 2005 SCC 2214, wherein it has been observed as under “18. One of the principles for determination of the amountof compensation for acquisition of land would be thewillingness of the informed buyer to offer the price therefor. It is beyond any cavil that the price of the land which awilling and informed buyer would offer would be differentin cases where the owner is in possession and enjoyment ofthe property and in the cases wherein he is not. 19.xxx20.The amount of compensation cannot be ascertainedwith mathematical accuracy. A comparable instance has tobe identified having regard to the proximity from timeangle as well as proximity from situation angle. Fordetermining the market value of the land underacquisition, suitable adjustment has to be made having -7- FA-1252-2017This judgment is corrected in view of the speaking to minutes order dated 25.09.2025regard to various positive and negative factors viz a viz theland under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition.The positive and negative factors are as under:Positive factorsNegative factorsi)smallnes of sizei)largeness of areaii)proximity to a roadii)situation in the interior at a distance from the roadiii)frontage on a roadiii)narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depthiv)nearness to developed area portioniv)lower level requiring thedepressed to be filled upv)regular shape developedv)remoteness from localityvi)level vix-a-vis land under acquisitionvi)some special disadvantageous factors which would deter a purchaservii)special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantageThe above positive and negative factors are reflected in Section23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act and Section 15 of the Actmandates that in determining the amount of compensation, theCollector shall be guided by the provisions contained in Sections 23and 24 of the Act i.e. dealt and produced in the above judgment ofthe Hon’ble Apex Court in Viluben. -8- FA-1252-2017This judgment is corrected in view of the speaking to minutes order dated 25.09.20258.Again, there are catena of judgments wherein it is held thatwhile applying comparable sales method, which is generally preferredover other methods, certain factors are required to be fulfilled andonly on fulfillment of those factors, the compensation can beawarded, according to the value of the land reflected in the sales. Thefactors which require consideration are as under :1.Sale must be a genuine transaction.2.Sale deed must be executed at the time proximate to thedate of issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act.3.The land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of theacquired land.4.The land covered by the sale must be similar to the acquiredland and lastly,5.The size of the plot of land covered by the sales must becomparable to the land acquired. If above factors are satisfied, then there is no reason why salevalue of the land covered by the sales be not given for the acquiredland. It is also further settled position that it is open to the court toproportionately reduce the compensation for acquired land than whatis reflected in the sales depending upon the disadvantages attachedwith the acquired land. -9- FA-1252-2017This judgment is corrected in view of the speaking to minutes order dated 25.09.2025Above position has been clarified in the judgment of Hon’bleApex Court in the case of Shaji Kuria Kose and another v. Indian OilCorporation Ltd. And others reported in AIR 2001 SC 3341. 9.Bearing above settled position in mind, case in hand is dealtand decided. 10.Here admittedly, appellant’s land which is acquired by therespondent State admeasures 617 R. Learned Reference Court hasawarded compensation for land at the rate of 850/- per R. Therefore,when said area is placed in juxtaposition to the sale instances Exhibit28 and Exhibit 27, it is apparent that there is difference between sizeof the land acquired by the State and the size of land reflected in thesale instance. On going through sale instance Exhibit 28 dated28.07.1993, therein area admeasuring 5 Are seems to have been sold;in sale instance dated 21.07.1994 area sold and transacted is 5½ Areand in sale instance dated 28.09.1995 land transacted is 4 Are.According to learned counsel for the appellant, for 5 Are, pricefetched was 3000/- per Are i.e. Rs.1,20,000/- per acre, for landadmeasuring 4 R price fetched was 3,800/- per R i.e. 1,52,000/- peracre and for 5 R, price fetched was 6,250/- R i.e. Rs.2,50,000/- peracre. Amongst the above sale instances, sale instance dated -10- FA-1252-2017This judgment is corrected in view of the speaking to minutes order dated 25.09.202528.09.1995 is pressed into service on the ground that it is the mostproximate to the date of Notification of acquisition and hence, saidrate is pressed into service.11.After going through the above sale instances, there is nomanner of doubt that said instances are of same village Poos whereinland in question of the appellants was also located and has beenacquired. However, it is conspicuous and pertinent that the sizes/areaof land sold in those sale instances are not comparable to the size ofpresent appellant’s land acquired. As stated above, area in above saleinstances is 5 Are and 4 Are respectively, whereas, area acquired ofappellant’s land is 617 Are (6 Hectare 17 Are). Going by such figures,in view of one of the essential factors which prevail in determinationi.e. “size”, the same cannot be said to be comparable one. Exhibit 27,which is of 08.02.1991 and is also relied as a comparable saleinstance, admeasures 1 Hectare and in alleged sale transaction, pricefetched was said to be Rs.1,000/- per Are i.e. Rs.40,000/- per Acre.Therefore, going by the standards reflected in above rulings to befollowed and taking same into account while applying comparablesale instance, sizes do not match.12.Learned Reference Court in para 6 has observed that, there isno positive evidence on behalf of claimants that land acquired has -11- FA-1252-2017This judgment is corrected in view of the speaking to minutes order dated 25.09.2025similar benefits, location and quality, which are other factors also tobe borne in mind while ascertaining the market value. It is furtherobserved and held that sale instance dated 08.02.1991 is also notcomparable, but why, has not been elaborated. It is further observedthat it appears from record that from the year 1991 to year 1993-94,the market value of lands at village Poos was ranging betweenRs.1000/- to Rs.2000/- per Are. But, considering the small pieces ofland under sale deeds and by applying Arms Chair rule, the marketvalue of acquired land on the date of Notification is held to be aroundRs.800/- to Rs.850/- per Are. In same paragraph, again learned Reference Court has also heldthat lands in all the references are bagayat lands as well is situated,and then market value of bagayat land is held to be Rs.850/- per Are.13.In the judgment of Dollar Company, Madras v. Collector ofMadras AIR 1975 SC 1670, it has been observed that, appellate courtinterferes not when the judgment under appeal is not right, but onlywhen it is shown to be wrong. It is further held that appellate courtsshould interfere only when wrong principles are applied or ifauthorities have omitted to take into consideration important pointsaffecting valuation. -12- FA-1252-2017This judgment is corrected in view of the speaking to minutes order dated 25.09.202514.Going by above law, here, as stated above, sizes of the area oflands in sale instances relied before Reference Court as well as thisCourt are not comparable. It is found to be almost more than 100times. Considering the very observations of learned Reference Courtabout record showing market price from 1991 to 1993-94 in villagePoos to be somewhat between Rs.1000/- to Rs.2000/- per R, applyingthe standard of consideration of highest rate, in the consideredopinion of this Court, rate awarded ought to have been at leastRs.2000/- per Are which seems to be just and proper. Hence, it wouldbe desirable to consider price of the land at the rate of Rs.2000/- perAre.15.Learned counsel for appellants has sought reliance on judgmentof Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.)Faridkot and others v. State of Punjab and others AIR 2012 SC 2721(supra), but in said case, there was material suggesting lands to behaving greater potential and being strategically located at acommercial hub abutting to the main road surrounded by commercialarea and other infrastructures. Here, there is nothing to indicate whysale instance dated 28.09.1995, which is pressed into service forconsidering rate of Rs.6,250/- Are be considered and accordinglycompensation be granted.
Decision
-13- FA-1252-2017This judgment is corrected in view of the speaking to minutes order dated 25.09.202516.In view of the above discussion, compensation is required to beassessed at Rs.2,000/- per Are which was also demanded by theappellants before the Reference Court. Reference Court has erred inawarding compensation to the appellants @ Rs.850/- per Are. Henceclaimants are entitled for enhanced compensation at Rs.1,150/- perAre. In appeal, appellants have not questioned the rate awarded pertree by the Reference Court and therefore, the same is not disturbed.In the result, following order is passed :ORDERI.The First Appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs.II.The judgment and award passed by the Reference Court ismodified to the effect that claimants shall be paid enhancedcompensation at the rate of Rs.1,150/- per Are along with statutorybenefits on enhanced compensation.III.Respondents to pay interest to the claimants on enhancedcompensation from the date of claim petition till realization,excluding the period of delay caused in filing this First Appeal, as perthe provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.IV.The First Appeal is disposed off in view of above terms. [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]vre