High Court · 2025
Legal Reasoning
fa698.20-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD903 FIRST APPEAL NO. 698 OF 2020 1.The State of MaharashtraThrough the Collector, Latur 2.The Principal,Police Training SchoolBabhalgaon, ...Appellants Tq. and district Latur (Ori. Respondents) Versus 1.Limban s/o Sakharam SonkambleAge major, Occ. Agriculture 2.Gangubai w/o Shripat SonkambleAge major, Occ. HouseholdBoth R/o. Babhalgaon, ...Respondents Tq. and district Latur(Ori. Claimants) …..AGP for Appellants : Mr. Rajkumar B. Dhaware Advocate for Respondents : Mr. Suraj V. Gundre …..AND CROSS OBJECTION NO. 8 OF 2025INFIRST APPEAL NO. 698 OF 2020 1.Limban s/o Sakharam SonkambleAge major, Occ. Agriculture 2.Gangubai w/o Shripat SonkambleAge major, Occ. HouseholdBoth R/o. Babhalgaon, ...Appellants Tq. and district Latur(Ori. Claimants) Versus fa698.20-2- 1.The State of MaharashtraThrough the Collector, Latur 2.The Principal,Police Training SchoolBabhalgaon, ...Respondents Tq. and district Latur (Ori. Respondents) ...Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Gundre Suraj VAGP for Respondents: Mr. Rajkumar B. Dhaware ….. CORAM:SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.DATED:17th JANUARY 2025 JUDGMENT:- 1.The first appeal is preferred by the State Governmentagainst the judgment and award dated 5.10.2018, passed by thelearned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur in Land AcquisitionReference No. 140 of 2008.2.The case of the claimants, in brief, is that the amount ofcompensation awarded to them for their acquired agricultural land isnot properly carved out as per market value. The claimants have filedcross objection.3.Learned advocate for the respondents-claimants pointedout the judgment of this Court, delivered in first appeal No. 1668 of2014 and other connected appeals, dated 1.7.2024, by which the fa698.20-3- amount of compensation is enhanced at Rs.371/- per sq. ft. (inclusiveof 10% hike per year for three years).4.Learned advocate further submitted that the issue involvedin this matter is covered by the said judgment, as the land involved inthe said judgment and the present matter is acquired by one and thesame acquisition proceeding. He therefore, submitted to dismiss theappel and allow the cross objection.5.Learned A.G.P for the State strongly opposed the crossobjection and prayed to allow the first appeal by setting aside theimpugned judgment and award.6.The following point emerged for consideration:-Is the impugned judgment and award incorrect and requiredinterference? 7.The learned Division Bench of this Court in the matter ofThe State of Maharashtra and another vs. Digambar ManikKalyanakar, first appeal No.1668 of 2014 and other connectedmatters, decided on 1.7.2024, in para 13 and 14 observed as under:-“13.Though the learned Reference Court arrived at theabove referred conclusions and findings and was of the viewas seen from the observations made in Paragraph No.29 of fa698.20-4- the impugned Judgment and Decree / Award that the saleinstances below Exhibits 21 to 24 took place in the year2002 and notification under Section 4 of the said Act hasbeen published on 17/05/2006 and considered 10%increase per year for three years, then the said price comesto Rs.278/-, Rs.295/-, Rs.309/- and Rs.371/- per sq. ft.respectively as per the the sale instances [referred by theClaimants] and though the sale instances referred by theLAO in the Award at Sr. Nos.1 and 2, then also byconsidering 10% increase per annum, the sale price comesto Rs.230/- and Rs.270/- per sq. ft., held that it wouldconsider the average of the sale instances placed before itand considered the sale instance below Exhibit – 22[Rs.295/-] for determining the market price by considering itas more reasonable and comparable sale instance. Ratio ofthe above referred Judgments relied upon by the learnedAdvocate for the Claimants cited [Supra] show that, in theevent of several exemplar, usually the highest exemplar is tobe considered. 14.According to the learned Reference Court as seenfrom the observations made in Paragraph No.30 of theimpugned Judgment and Decree / Award that the highestcomparable sale instance comes to Rs.371/- per sq. ft. andlowest price comes to Rs.278/- per sq. ft., it considered thecomparable sale instance below Exhibit – 22 and held that itwould be just and proper to award the compensation at rateof Rs.295/- per sq. ft. to the Claimants. Once the learnedReference Court held that the sale instances relied upon bythe Claimants were identical and similar to that of acquiredlands and can be considered to determine the exact marketprice, the highest sale instance amongst the sale instancesrelied upon by the Claimants ought to have beenconsidered, in the light of the above referred position under fa698.20-5- the law. In the light of the above discussion, we hold thatthe compensation awarded by the learned Reference Courtto the Claimants is required to be modified to that of the saleinstances at Exhibit – 24 relied upon by the Claimants andheld to be identical with the acquired land by the learnedReference Court”.8.In para 16 and 17, the Division Bench held that thededuction towards development charges ought to have been 33.33%,however, the reference court held that the development charges are25%. The final compensation was awarded towards entire land @Rs.371/- per sq. ft., inclusive of 10% hike per year for three years.9.In view of the reasons recorded in the judgment of this courtin the case of The State of Maharashtra and another vs.Digambar Manik Kalyanakar (supra), by applying the principle ofparity, it is held that the compensation awarded by the referencecourt @ Rs.188/- per sq. ft. is not legal and correct. Therefore, theargument of learned A.G.P. is not acceptable. There is no substancein the grounds of objections raised in the first appeal.10.In view of the principle of parity and the judgment in thecase of The State of Maharashtra and another vs. DigambarManik Kalyanakar (supra) the cross objection deserves to beallowed. The impugned judgment deserves to be modified as per
Decision
fa698.20-6- above judgment. The appeal deserves to be dismissed. Hence, thefollowing order is passed:-O R D E RI.The appeal is dismissed. II.The cross objection is partly allowed. The impugnedjudgment and award are partly modified as under:- III.The claimants are entitled for compensation towardsacquired land @ Rs.371/- per sq.ft. (inclusive of 10% hikeper year for three years). IV.Deduction towards development charges be calculated atthe rate of one third i.e. 33.33% from the amount ofcompensation.V.The appellant is directed to deposit the enhanced amount ofcompensation within 12 weeks from today. VI.The decree be drawn up accordingly.VII.The bank guarantee furnished at the time of withdrawal ofthe amount is discharged. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.)rlj/