Full Judgment Text
2026:BHC-AUG:5094
906 FA NO. 469 OF 1999.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
906 FIRST APPEAL NO. 469 OF 1999
The Municipal Council,
Latur, Dist. Latur
through its Chief Officer ..Appellant
(Orig. Respondent No.2)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Latur
District Latur
2. Murlidhar S/o Jetmal Bang,
Deceased through his L.Rs.,
2-a Gulabbai W/o Murlidhar Bang,
Age: 69 years, Occ: Household,
R/o Barshi, Tq. Barshi, Dist. Solapur
2-b Ramabai W/o Satyanarayan Baheti,
Age: 40 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Beed
2-c Pushpabai W/o Vasantrao Chendkar,
Age: 38 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Barshi, Tq. Barshi, Dist. Solapur
2-d Lilabai W/o. Satyanarayan Mundada,
Age: 36 years, Occu: Household
R/o. Thane, Dist. Thane
2-e Kalabai W/o. Prakash Somani,
Age: 37 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Dhoki, Dist. Latur
3. Ramnarayan S/o Murlidhar Bang,
Since deceased through L.Rs.
1 of 12
(( 2 )) 906 FA NO. 469 OF 1999
3-a Shakuntlabai W/o. Ramnarayan Bang
Age: 65 years, Occu: Household,
R/o Barshi, Tq. Barshi, Dist. Solapur
3-b Deepak S/o Ramnarayan Bang
Age: 48 years, Occu: Service
3-c Mukund S/o Ramnarayan Bang
Age: 35 years, Occu: Service
R/o Barshi, Tq. Barshi, Dist. Solapur
3-d Suvarna Vijaykumar Lahoti
Age: 45 years, Occu: Household,
Tq. And Dist. Washim
3-e Jyoti W/o Dilipji Sabu,
Age: 42 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Parli Vaijnath, Dist. Beed
4. Kamlakishor S/o Murlidhar Bang,
Age: 26 years, Occu: Business,
R/o. Latur, at present Barshi
5. Satyanarayan S/o Murlidhar Bang
(Since deceased, through his L.Rs.)
5-a Sunil S/o Satyanarayan Bang
Age: 39 years, Occu: Business,
R/o. Old Station Road, Gorakshan Mandal
Barshi, Tq. Barshi, Dist. Solapur
5-b Kaushalyabai Wd/o Satyanarayan Bang
Age: 61 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. As above
5-c Nita W/o Rajesh Zanwar,
Age: 42 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Mahesh colony, Hill garden
Gokak, Tq. Gokak (Karnataka State) ..Respondents
...
2 of 12
(( 3 )) 906 FA NO. 469 OF 1999
Mr. A. D. Sonkawade holding for Mr. A. V. Hon, Advocate for
Appellant
Mr. S. B. Jadhav, AGP for Respondent/State
Mr. V. D. Gunale and Mr. D. R Jethliya, Advocate for Respondent
Nos.2b to 2e and 3
Mr. H. B. Nandgavale and Mr. Ashwin V. Sakolkar h/for Mr. V. G.
Sakolkar, Advocate for respondent Nos.2-a to 2-f and 3 to 5
...
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 7 OF 2026
1. Murlidhar S/o Jetmal Bang,
Deceased through his L.Rs.,
1-a Gulabbai W/o Murlidhar Bang,
Age: 69 years, Occ: Household,
R/o Barshi, Tq. Barshi, Dist. Solapur
1-b Ramabai W/o Satyanarayan Baheti,
Age: 40 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Beed
1-c Pushpabai W/o Vasantrao Chendkar,
Age: 38 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Barshi, Tq. Barshi, Dist. Solapur
1-d Lilabai W/o. Satyanarayan Mundada,
Age: 36 years, Occu: Household
R/o. Thane, Dist. Thane
1-e Kalabai W/o. Prakash Somani,
Age: 37 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Dhoki, Dist. Latur
2. Ramnarayan S/o Murlidhar Bang,
Since deceased through L.Rs.
2-a Shakuntlabai W/o. Ramnarayan Bang
Age: 65 years, Occu: Household,
R/o Barshi, Tq. Barshi, Dist. Solapur
2-b Deepak S/o Ramnarayan Bang
Age: 48 years, Occu: Service
3 of 12
(( 4 )) 906 FA NO. 469 OF 1999
2-c Mukund S/o Ramnarayan Bang
Age: 35 years, Occu: Service
R/o Barshi, Tq. Barshi, Dist. Solapur
2-d Suvarna Vijaykumar Lahoti
Age: 45 years, Occu: Household,
Tq. And Dist. Washim
2-e Jyoti W/o Dilipji Sabu,
Age: 42 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Parli Vaijnath, Dist. Beed
3. Kamlakishor S/o Murlidhar Bang,
Age: 26 years, Occu: Business,
R/o. Latur, at present Barshi
4. Satyanarayan S/o Murlidhar Bang
(Since deceased, through his L.Rs.)
4-a Sunil S/o Satyanarayan Bang
Age: 39 years, Occu: Business,
R/o. Old Station Road, Gorakshan Mandal
Barshi, Tq. Barshi, Dist. Solapur
4-b Kaushalyabai Wd/o Satyanarayan Bang
Age: 61 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. As above
4-c Nita W/o Rajesh Zanwar,
Age: 42 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Mahesh colony, Hill garden
Gokak, Tq. Gokak (Karnataka State) ..Petitioners
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Latur
District Latur
2. The Municipal Council,
Latur, Dist. Latur
through its Chief Officer ..Respondents
4 of 12
(( 5 )) 906 FA NO. 469 OF 1999
…
Mr. V. D. Gunale and Mr. D. R Jethliya, Advocate for petitioner Nos.1b
to 1e and 2
Mr. H. B. Nandgavale and Mr. Ashwin V. Sakolkar h/for Mr. V. G.
Sakolkar, Advocate for petitioner Nos.1-a to 1-f and 2 to 4
Mr. S. B. Jadhav, AGP for Respondent/State
Mr. A. D. Sonkawade holding for Mr. A. V. Hon, Advocate for
respondent No.2
….
CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 29.01.2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. This appeal and Cross-Objection are preferred against the
judgment and award dated 05.03.1999 passed by the learned Land
Reference Court, Latur District Latur in Land Acquisition Reference
No.232 of 1987.
2. Mr. A. D. Sonkawade, learned advocate for the appellant in
First Appeal No.469 of 1999 and for respondent No.2 in Cross-
Objection No.7 of 2026 pointed out that the land situated at Latur
City, District Latur, bearing City Survey No.6398, Municipal No.9,
admeasuring 7002 sq. ft., was acquired for the purpose of
construction of Shopping complex under the notification published
under Section 4 dated 23.03.1982. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer (hereinafter referred to as the S.L.A.O.) passed an award on
23.09.1986 and awarded compensation @ Rs.11.61/- per sq. ft. The
5 of 12
(( 6 )) 906 FA NO. 469 OF 1999
reference was preferred against the award of the S.L.A.O, and the
learned Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation and
awarded Rs.85/- per sq. ft. Both the sides have preferred the appeal
and cross-objection for reduction and enhancement of amount of
compensation respectively.
3. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the
compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court is exorbitant
and unsustainable. The learned Reference Court relied upon the sale
exemplar at Exhibit-111 as well as the valuation report at Exhibit-32
and by applying incorrect method for determining compensation,
awarded an exorbitant amount of compensation. He submitted that
the learned Reference Court failed to make any deduction on account
of the large area of the acquired land without considering that the
sale exemplar at Exhibit-111 related to constructed property. He
further submitted that the evidence of the witnesses was not properly
appreciated and the other sale exemplars on record were not
considered. He, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal be setting aside
the impugned judgment and award. In support of his submissions he
relied upon the following authorities.
6 of 12
(( 7 )) 906 FA NO. 469 OF 1999
a. Special Deputy Collector and Another Vs. Kurra Sambasiva
and Others, Reported in (1997) 6 SCC 41, wherein it is held that
burden to prove market value of the acquired land is on the claimant
guess work is permissible but mechanical assessment of evidence
should be avoided.
b. V. Subrahmanya Rao Vs. Land Acquisition Zone Officer,
reported in (2004) 10 SCC 640, wherein it is held that best evidence
would be transaction of sale of the claimant himself and if it is not
available then transactions of other in vicinity.
c. Mala and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2023) 9
SCC 315, wherein it is held that there shall be appropriate 1/3
deduction of development charges.
4. Learned advocates for the cross-objectors, Mr. V. D. Gunale,
Mr. D. R Jethliya, Mr. H. B. Nandgavale and Mr. Ashwin V. Sakolkar
holding for Mr. V. G. Sakolkar, submitted that the learned Reference
Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. The sale
exemplar at Exhibit-111 which reflects the highest price and pertains
to three years prior transaction of the acquisition process. It is most
reliable piece of evidence, was not relied upon. They further
submitted that the claimants’ property is situated in the heart of Latur
7 of 12
(( 8 )) 906 FA NO. 469 OF 1999
city and has commercial as well as non-agricultural Potential. The
land consists of city survey plots. The acquired land and the land
covered under the sale exemplar at Exhibit-111 are situated in the
one and the same area and are similarly situated. The claimants’
property was commercial in nature and a DAL MILL was thereon, as
observed in the award of Land Acquisition Officer itself. They
submitted to consider said crucial fact. They pointed out paragraph
Nos.80 and 85 of the impugned judgment and submitted that the
learned Reference Court has not determined the compensation as per
the settled legal norms and on the contrary, on its own awarded
compensation @ Rs.85/- per sq. ft., which is meager and not
justifiable either in law or on facts. They prayed to dismiss the appeal
and allow the cross-objection by setting aside the impugned judgment
and award and to award enhanced amount of compensation.
Learned advocates for the claimants in support of their submissions
relied upon the following authorities.
a. Barla Ram Reddy Vs. State of Telangana, 2025 SCC Online
878, wherein 20% compounding escalation per year was awarded.
b. Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd) Vs. State of Punjab and
Others, reported in AIR 2012 SC 2721, wherein it is held that the
highest sale exemplar should be adopted for determining the market
8 of 12
(( 9 )) 906 FA NO. 469 OF 1999
value rather than averaging multiple sale instances.
5. Nobody will dispute the ratio laid down in the authorities
cited by both the sides. However, each case has to be decided on its
own merit.
6. Perused the record and proceedings, particularly the
pleadings, the evidence, the grounds of objections raised in the appeal
and Cross-Objections and the reasons and findings in the impugned
judgment.
7. On perusal of the sale exemplar at Exhibit-111, it is clear
that a shop admeasuring 360 sq. ft. bearing city survey No.6187, was
sold under a sale exemplar dated 03.05.1979 for a consideration of
Rs.49,000/- i.e., Rs.136/- per sq. ft. This is the sale exemplar showing
the highest price in that area. The acquired property and the
property sold under the sale exemplar Exhibit-111 are situated in the
one and same locality and are similar in nature, being city survey
properties located in the heart of Latur city. The claimants’ property
abuts the road and has commercial potential. The only difference is in
the area, as the claimants’ land admeasures 7002 sq. ft., whereas the
property under sale exemplar Exhibit-111 admeasures 360 sq. ft.
9 of 12
(( 10 )) 906 FA NO. 469 OF 1999
Therefore, a 20% of deduction of amount would be proper in the sale
exemplar Exhibit-111. After deduction, the market value comes to
Rs.108/- per sq. ft.
8. This Court in Murlidhar S/o Dasrao Bokil Vs. The State of
Maharashtra, decided in First Appeal No.2129 of 2018 on 16.02.2024
has held that for urban properties, escalation @ 15% of determined
value of the said property is required to be granted. Since both the
acquired property and the property sold under the sale exemplar at
Exhibit-111 are situated in the heart of Latur city, having commercial
nature, the claimants are entitled for 15% escalation for three years
i.e., from the date of sale exemplar Exhibit-111 03.05.1979 till the
date of notification 23.03.1982. After deducting 20%, rate comes to
Rs.108/- per sq. ft. A 15% escalation for the first year comes to
Rs.16.20, total Rs.124.20 per sq. ft. for the second year, it comes to
Rs.18.63, total Rs.140.83 per sq. ft. for the third year Rs.21.42, total
Rs.164.25 per sq. ft., which is rounded off to Rs.164/- per sq. ft. is
market value of the acquired land. Accordingly, the claimants are
entitled to enhanced amount of compensation @ Rs.164/- per sq. ft.
for their acquired land admeasuring 7002 sq. ft., which includes
earlier compensation received by them.
10 of 12
(( 11 )) 906 FA NO. 469 OF 1999
9. Upon considering the grounds of objections raised in the
appeal as well as in the cross-objection and on re-appreciation of the
entire evidence on record, this Court is of the view that there is no
substance in the grounds of objection raised in the appeal. For the
reasons discussed above, the case law (supra) submitted by the
appellant is not helpful to him. The appeal deserves to be dismissed.
However, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the cross-objection
deserves to be allowed by enhancing the amount of compensation @
Rs.164 per sq. ft. The impugned judgment and award deserve to be
partly set aside. Hence, the following order:
::ORDER::
I. The First Appeal is dismissed. The Cross-Objection is
allowed.
II. The impugned judgments and awards are partly set aside
and modified as under:
(a) The claimants-Cross-objectors are entitled to compensation
@ Rs.164/- per sq. ft for their acquired land, including the
earlier compensation awarded and received by them , along
with all statutory benefits like additional component,
interest and solatium etc., as per the Provisions of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
11 of 12
(( 12 )) 906 FA NO. 469 OF 1999
III. It is clarified that the claimants are not entitled to the
interest and other statutory benefits for the period of delay,
if any condoned by this Court.
IV. The respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced amount
of compensation with accrued interest thereon along with
all statutory benefits like interest, component and solatium
etc., within six (06) months.
V. If the court fee is not paid for enhanced amount, the
claimants shall pay deficit court fee. On receiving the
same, the enhanced amount of compensation be paid to the
claimants.
VI. Award be drawn up accordingly.
VII. Out of the amount deposited in this Court, the claimants
have withdrawn some amount. The Registry is directed to
pay the remaining amount along with accrued interest
thereon to the claimants.
VIII. Pending civil applications, if any, are disposed of.
IX. Record and Proceedings be sent back.
[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]
HRJadhav
12 of 12