Full Judgment Text
2026:BHC-AUG:645
911.FA.1119.2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1119 OF 2018
The Executive Engineer
Minor Irrigation Division Latur & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Babulal Bansilal Toshniwal ...Respondent
*
Ms. Gangwal Madhubala B., Advocate for the Appellants.
*
CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.
DATE : JANUARY 09, 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard. Admit. Ms. Madhubala Gangwal, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants / acquiring body
2. The present appeal takes exception to the judgment
th
delivered on 18 September 2012, passed by the Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Nilanga, in Land Acquisition Reference No.08 of 2004, by
which Land Acquisition Reference No.08 of 2004 was partly allowed
with proportionate costs. It was held that the claimant / respondent
was entitled to recover enhanced compensation @ 2100/- (Rs. Two ₹
Thousand One Hundred) per R for 17 R land, with 30% solatium and
12% interest from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, till the date of award, after deducting the
Shrikant Malani Page 1 of 3
911.FA.1119.2018
compensation withdrawn of 18,742/-. The claimant was also held ₹
entitled to receive 9% interest per annum for one year from the date of
notification under Section 4 of the Act and also to recover 15% interest
th
per annum from 25 August 2001 till entire realization of amount.
3. Assailing the said judgment, the learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the Court should not have taken into
consideration Exhibit 27, which is the sale deed / sale instance. Sofar
as Exhibit 27 is concerned, this is the land, which is admittedly
situated at a distance of 500 meters from the acquired land. According
to the learned counsel for the appellant, since it was a small piece of
land, the said evidence should have been ignored.
4. I have gone through the record of the case and heard the
learned counsel for the appellant at length. While dealing with Exhibit
27, the learned Court has given the following findings, which are re-
produced hereinbelow.
“19. The land of sale instance Exh.27 is near to the river.
It is of less area and claimant deposed that his land
is at the distance of 500 meter from the land of sale
instance Exh.27. Both lands are on bank of river.
So, I accept the sale deed Exh.27. But for
determining proper price in consonation of
Shrikant Malani Page 2 of 3
911.FA.1119.2018
guidelines given in authority cited supra, I decrease
the price of the said sale instance by 60%. Then
market price of the said land comes to Rs.1400/- per
R. So, I held that market price of the dry land is @
Rs.1400/- per R. and Rs.2100/- per R. for seasonal
irrigated land at the time of acquisition.”
5. Thus, it is crystal clear that while relying upon Exhibit 27,
the necessary deductions were also made by applying the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravinder Narain and
1
another Vs. Union of India . The Trial Court has also observed in the
judgment that Exhibit 27, so also the acquired land, is situated on the
bank of river, and thereafter, for awarding the compensation, the price
was decreased, which is clear from the findings given at paragraph
No.17 of the judgment. Since the only question argued was regarding
the applicability of Exhibit 27, I find that, in view of the proper
consideration of evidence and the findings given by the Trial Court,
more particularly at paragraph No.17, there is no any merit in the
appeal. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed.
( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. )
1 AIR 2003 sc 1987
Shrikant Malani Page 3 of 3
911.FA.1119.2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1119 OF 2018
The Executive Engineer
Minor Irrigation Division Latur & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Babulal Bansilal Toshniwal ...Respondent
*
Ms. Gangwal Madhubala B., Advocate for the Appellants.
*
CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.
DATE : JANUARY 09, 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard. Admit. Ms. Madhubala Gangwal, learned counsel
appearing for the appellants / acquiring body
2. The present appeal takes exception to the judgment
th
delivered on 18 September 2012, passed by the Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Nilanga, in Land Acquisition Reference No.08 of 2004, by
which Land Acquisition Reference No.08 of 2004 was partly allowed
with proportionate costs. It was held that the claimant / respondent
was entitled to recover enhanced compensation @ 2100/- (Rs. Two ₹
Thousand One Hundred) per R for 17 R land, with 30% solatium and
12% interest from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, till the date of award, after deducting the
Shrikant Malani Page 1 of 3
911.FA.1119.2018
compensation withdrawn of 18,742/-. The claimant was also held ₹
entitled to receive 9% interest per annum for one year from the date of
notification under Section 4 of the Act and also to recover 15% interest
th
per annum from 25 August 2001 till entire realization of amount.
3. Assailing the said judgment, the learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that the Court should not have taken into
consideration Exhibit 27, which is the sale deed / sale instance. Sofar
as Exhibit 27 is concerned, this is the land, which is admittedly
situated at a distance of 500 meters from the acquired land. According
to the learned counsel for the appellant, since it was a small piece of
land, the said evidence should have been ignored.
4. I have gone through the record of the case and heard the
learned counsel for the appellant at length. While dealing with Exhibit
27, the learned Court has given the following findings, which are re-
produced hereinbelow.
“19. The land of sale instance Exh.27 is near to the river.
It is of less area and claimant deposed that his land
is at the distance of 500 meter from the land of sale
instance Exh.27. Both lands are on bank of river.
So, I accept the sale deed Exh.27. But for
determining proper price in consonation of
Shrikant Malani Page 2 of 3
911.FA.1119.2018
guidelines given in authority cited supra, I decrease
the price of the said sale instance by 60%. Then
market price of the said land comes to Rs.1400/- per
R. So, I held that market price of the dry land is @
Rs.1400/- per R. and Rs.2100/- per R. for seasonal
irrigated land at the time of acquisition.”
5. Thus, it is crystal clear that while relying upon Exhibit 27,
the necessary deductions were also made by applying the law laid
down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravinder Narain and
1
another Vs. Union of India . The Trial Court has also observed in the
judgment that Exhibit 27, so also the acquired land, is situated on the
bank of river, and thereafter, for awarding the compensation, the price
was decreased, which is clear from the findings given at paragraph
No.17 of the judgment. Since the only question argued was regarding
the applicability of Exhibit 27, I find that, in view of the proper
consideration of evidence and the findings given by the Trial Court,
more particularly at paragraph No.17, there is no any merit in the
appeal. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed.
( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. )
1 AIR 2003 sc 1987
Shrikant Malani Page 3 of 3