SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Bom) 296

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD BENCH
R.G. AVACHAT, NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.
Sumitrabai W/o. Madhavrao Naik, Deceased – Her LRs & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Latur & Ors. - Respondents
First Appeal No.2158 of 2008 And First Appeal No.2159 of 2008 And First Appeal No.2161 of 2008
Decided On : 07-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Shri. Sharad V. Natu, Shri. Navin Shah a/w. Shri. Ashwin Thool,
Shri. Ayesh Singh, Shri. Jaymangal Dhanraj, Shri. Archishmati, Advocate for the Appellants
Dr. Smt. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar, Addl. G. P. for the Respondent / State.

The potentiality of acquired land and comparable sale instances are crucial for determining fair compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.

Headnote:

(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 54 and Section 18 - Appeals regarding compensation for acquired land - The Reference Court partly allowed claims for enhanced compensation based on market value and potentiality of the land - The court emphasized the importance of comparable sale instances and the need to consider the highest sale instance for determining compensation. (Paras 6, 16, 20)

(B) Legal Principles - The potentiality of the acquired land is a primary factor in determining market value - Comparable sale instances are the best guide for compensation - A cumulative increase of 10 to 15% per year in market value is acceptable unless proven otherwise. (Paras 6(i), 6(ii), 6(iii))

Facts of the case:
The Appellants owned land in Dapaka, acquired for police facilities, claiming compensation significantly higher than awarded by the LAO. The Reference Court accepted a rate of Rs.75/- per Sq. Ft. after deductions. (Paras 2.1, 2.2, 2.3)

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Reference Court's decision, allowing a 10% annual increase in market value from the date of sale instances until the notification date. (Paras 20)

Issues: The main issues included the adequacy of compensation awarded and the relevance of sale instances for determining market value. (Paras 8)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Reference Court correctly considered the potentiality of the land and the best available sale instances, affirming the need for a fair market value assessment. (Paras 20)

Result: Appeals partly allowed; compensation increased by 10% per year until the notification date.

JUDGMENT :

NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.

1. As the acquired lands are from the same Survey/Gat Number situated at village Dapaka, Tal. Nilanga, Dist. Latur, the evidence led before the learned Reference Court is common and common submissions are made by both the sides in all these three (3) Appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the LA Act), they are decided by this common Judgment.

1A] In First Appeal No.2158 of 2008, the impugned Judgment and Order / Award is dated 05.03.2008, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nilanga, Dist. Latur in Land Acquisition Reference (LAR) No.505/2002, partly allowing the Appellants’ claim for enhanced compensation.

1B] In First Appeal No.2159 of 2008, the Judgment and Order / Award is dated 05.03.2008, passed by the learned III Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nilanga, Dist. Latur in Land Acquisition Reference (LAR) No.1/2004, partly allowing the Appellant’s claim for enhanced compensation.

1C] In First Appeal No.2161 of 2008, the Judgment and Order / Award is dated 28.03.2008, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nilanga, Dist. Latur in Land Acquisition Reference (LAR) No.1/2008 (Old L.A.R. No.298/1999), partly allowing the Appellants’claim for enhanced compensation.

2. The facts giving rise to the present Appeals are as under :

2.1. In First Appeal No.2158 of 2008 :-

I) The Appellants were the owners and possessors of land admeasuring 2 Hector, 2 R from Gat No.86 located in village Dapaka, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur. The said land was acquired by the Respondents / Acquiring Body for construction of the residential colony / quarters and other facilities for the police personnel. For the said acquisition, the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) issued the Notifications under the relevant provisions of the LA Act. The Appellants raised their claim in response to the notice received under the LA Act and claimed compensation @ Rs.350/- (Rs. Three Hundred Fifty) per Sq. Ft. The LAO, by considering all the aspects passed the Award and granted compensation @ Rs.14 to 15 /- (Rupees Fourteen to Fifteen) per Sq. Ft. (Rs.145/- [Rupees One Hundred Fourty Five] per Sq. Meter) to the Appellants.

II) The Appellants preferred the Reference under Section 18 of the LA Act, contending that the acquired land is situated in the developed area and adjacent to the Municipal limits of Nilanga. The acquired land was having Non-agricultural (NA) potentiality. The LAO did not consider the documents submitted in support of claim for enhanced compensation. The Appellants led evidence in support of their claim before the learned Reference Court. The Appellants’ examined Witness No.1 – Hemant Madhavrao Naik [Appellant No.1/3] at Exh.21, Witness No.2 – Vasant s/o. Govindrao Naik at Exh.23 [Survey No.7/A, Sale deed dated 25.08.1997], Witness No.3 - Ravishankar Sitarampant Sabnis at Exh.25 [Survey No.86/B, Sale deed dated 21.04.1999], Witness No.4 – Achyut Wamanrao Talikhede at Exh.27 [Survey No.292 Sale deed dated 14.03.1996], and Witness No.5 – Sidramappa Bhimannappa Solapure at Exh.29 [Survey No.292, Sale deed dated 14.03.1996] and brought the sale instances on record.

III) The Respondents / Acquiring Body placed on record certified copies of Index II and the sale-deed and submitted pursis that they do not want to examine any witness.

IV) Considering the evidence available on record and after hearing both the sides, the learned Reference Court partly allowed the Reference by accepting the rate of Rs.100/- per Sq. Ft. and deducting @ 25% towards development charges and held the Appellants entitled to receive the compensation @ Rs.75/- per Sq. Ft. The operative Order of the learned Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference (LAR)No.505/2002, reads as under :

“1. Reference is hereby partly allowed.

2. Claimants namely – Hemant s/o Madhavrao Naik, Vijay s/o. Madhavrao Naik, Madhavrao s/o. Yeshwantrao Naik, Yeshwantrao s/o. Madhavrao Naik, L.Rs. Of deceased original claim


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top