Dhondiba v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

( 2 ) FA-152-2026Mahadev s/o. Baburao Shepand Ors....AppellantsVERSUSThe State of Maharashtra and Ors....Respondents...Mr. S. R. Shirsath, Advocate for Appellant in FA/152/2026,FA/2228/2018 and FA/1845/2018.Mr. A. N. Nagargoje h/f Mr. R. K. Shingnapure, Advocate for Appellant inFA/2228/ and FA/2289/2018.Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. G. S. Rane, Advocate forRespondent/Acquiring Body.Mr. D. R. Bhadekar, Advocate for Respondent No.2, 3, 4, 5, 15A to 15C.Mr. V. V. Bhavthankar, Advocate for Respondent No.4. Mrs. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar, AGP for Respondent-State. CORAM:KISHORE C. SANT &SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, JJ.RESERVED ON: 12th MARCH 2026.PRONOUNCED ON:7th MAY 2026.ORDER :- [ PER:- KISHORE C. SANT, J.]1.Heard the parties.2.All these first appeals are arising out of common Judgment andAward dated 05.10.2017 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,Ambajogai in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 129/2007 and 128/2007. ( 3 ) FA-152-2026The learned Reference Court, on recording the evidence and hearing theparties, partly allowed the references and granted the rate of Rs.5,000/-per R. including the compensation amount paid earlier withconsequential benefits. The appellants/Original claimants have thereforeapproached this Court seeking further enhancement. 3.For the purpose of convenience, the appellants are called asclaimants. Respondent Nos. 1 is the State, Respondent No.2 is theDeputy Collector, Respondent No.3 is the Power GridCorporation/Acquiring Body, and other Respondents are the originalclaimants in LAR No.128/2007 and LAR No.129/2007.4.A notification under Section 4 came to be issued on 12.10.2006.Section 6 proclamation is issued on 17.01.2007. The possession of theland was taken and award was passed on 08.02.2007. Section 12(2)notice served to the original claimants on 07.06.2007. The payment wasmade on 16.06.2007. The SLAO awarded the amount of compensationRs. 2,300/- per R. ( 4 ) FA-152-20265.It is the case of the appellants/claimants that they are entitled toget the compensation at the rate of Rs.77,000/- per R. The learned SLAOhad awarded the compensation at meager rate, and therefore, they hadapproached the Collector by filing References. However, the referenceCourt also failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective andgranted meager enhancement. The compensation awarded is thus notjust and fair. The Court failed to appreciate that the lands are situatedoutside Ambajogai city. There are also constructions made in andaround the vicinity. The area is well-developed area. The learned Courtbelow has failed to appreciate that the agreement to sale and sale-deedat Exh.120 was for the land with constructions and that the highestexemplar is not considered. The adjacent land survey No.100 isconverted long back into non-agricultural land. The Court failed toappreciate these aspects. The other lands in the vicinity are alsoconverted into N.A. land. 6.The learned Advocate Mr. Nagargoje, appearing for Appellant inFirst Appeal No.2289/2018 and FA/2289/2018, submits that the Court ( 5 ) FA-152-2026below ought to have granted the rate as prayed for in the Referenceswhereas, the Court has granted only rate of Rs.5,000/-. He relied uponthe judgment passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,Ambajogai in LAR No.130/2007 against which the appeal is filed byPower Grid Corporation. In the said Reference, the rate awarded isRs.77,000/- per R. wherein the same sale-deed is considered which isconsidered in the present Reference. The trial Court has committed anerror wherein the land with construction was sold for Rs.45 lakhswhereas, the Court has considered the cost of construction to be Rs.40lakhs and granted compensation by considering the valuation of the landonly Rs.5 lakh. In the other reference, the construction was consideredonly for the land and the rate of Rs.77,000/- per R. was granted. He thussubmits that at least the rate of Rs.77,000/- per R. ought to have beengranted. The Court also failed to appreciate that the land is having N.A.potential. The adjoining lands are included in the municipal councillimits. There are facilities available in the vicinity of Ambajogai likeMedical College, Hospital, Engineering College, Educational Institution,Rural Hospital etc. There is also a District and Sessions Court etc. He ( 6 ) FA-152-2026thus submits that the said rate ought to have been granted in the presentcase also. The vendor and purchaser are also examined, who are partiesto the sale-deed dated 03.01.2007. He further submits that the relianceplaced by the reference Court on the sale deed dated 03.01.2007 is notchallenged by the acquiring body and thus the same needs to beconsidered. The acquiring body has now again raised an objection forrelying upon the said sale-deed. The Court has only considered the ratealongwith constructions. Thus, he submits that at-least the compensationof Rs.77,000/- ought to have been granted. 7.Learned Advocate Mr. Shirsath in First Appeal No. 2228/2018 andin First Appeal No. 152/2026 adopted the argument of Mr. Nagargoje,learned Advocate for Appellant. 8.Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Sapkal, appearing for Respondent-Acquiring Body, vehemently opposed the appeals. He submits that thesale-deed dated 03.01.2007 cannot be considered as the said sale-deedis after the date of notification. The agreement to sale, on the basis ofwhich sale-deed is executed, is unregistered agreement and therefore ( 7 ) FA-152-2026cannot be relied upon. He invites an attention to Section 34 of theBombay Stamp Act. It is submitted that though there is no challenge tothe conclusion by the Court on the basis of said sale-deed, it is onlybecause the appellant accepted the price granted in the Reference Court.It could not be taken that the evidence is accepted by the acquiring bodyunless the contents of document are specifically admitted. During thecourse, it is shown that the some land of Shepwadi village is included inMunicipal Corporation area in 2011. It is also seen that the secondaryevidence was led before the Court. 9.Learned Advocate Mr. Girish Rane adopted the argument oflearned Senior Advocate Mr. Sapkal. 10.Parties have relied upon the following judgments:(i)Manohar & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.1(ii)Muruganandam Vs. Muniyandi (Died) Through LRs.2(iii)Mahadev Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner/Land3.1AIR 2025 SC 35002AIR online 2025 SC 39932002 (9) SCC 487 ( 8 ) FA-152-202611.In the case of Manohar (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Courtconsidered that the trial Court has rightly enhanced the compensation byconsidering the highest exemplar sale-deed after applying appropriatededuction. The trial court’s judgment was modified by the High Court.The Hon’ble Apex Court considered that the high Court erred inmodifying the rate granted by the trial Court. 12.This Court has heard the appeal filed by acquiring body alongwiththese appeals. This Court in the said judgment has already consideredthe argument of claimant therein. In that judgment, this Court has cometo the conclusion that the reference Court has rightly relied upon thesale instance of the land. The sale instance is also relied upon in thegroup of References in the present appeals. Though the argumentadvanced is that only the rate is acceptable and therefore, no appeal isfiled, this Court finds that the fact remains that the document, oncerelied upon in the references and not challenged, can certainly be readfor the purpose of determining just and fair compensation. This Court inFirst Appeal No.203/2007 had clearly held that though the sale-deed ( 9 ) FA-152-2026was after the date of notification, the agreement to sale was executedprior to notification, and therefore, the same is not considered. In thepresent case, though the said sale-deed is considered, the Courtnecessarily has taken the value of the construction to be Rs.40,00,000/-out of the total consideration of Rs.45,00,000/-. The Court ought tohave considered that the construction was of the land for the purpose ofdevelopment of the land. The developer had purchased the land bypaying consideration for the land only, it has come on record that thedeveloper has made some construction like site office. The saidconstruction is only for the purpose of develop and not for sale. In suchcircumstances, it can not be said that the cost was towards construction.The learned trial Court therefore committed a mistake in the presentcase by considering the construction amount as part of the considerationand very meager amount is considered towards land. This Court hasalready taken a view in the appeal No.203/2007. In view of judgment inthe case of Manohar (supra) after applying some deduction, it is heldthat the value would be Rs.57,750/- per R. which would be fair andadequate compensation for this land. ( 10 ) FA-152-202613.This Court thus finds that the appeal deserves to be partly allowedby modifying the award holding proper rate to be Rs.57,750/- per R.alongwith statutory benefits. The award stands modified to the extentabove. The amount of compensation be paid within a period of sixmonths from today with all statutory benefits.14.With these, First Appeals stand disposed off. No order as to costs.[SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.][KISHORE C. SANT, J.]D.A.ETHAPE