Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2025 INSC 1348
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.___________ OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. of 2025)
Diary No. 25098 of 2025
Ashok s/o Vitthalrao Jagtap …Appellant
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. …Respondents
with
CIVIL APPEAL NO.___________ OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. of 2025)
Diary No. 25113 of 2025
CIVIL APPEAL NO.___________ OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. of 2025)
Diary No. 25784 of 2025
CIVIL APPEAL NO.___________ OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 28986 of 2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.___________ OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.28985 of 2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.___________ OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.28984 of 2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.___________ OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 32771 of 2025)
and
CIVIL APPEAL NO.___________ OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 32770 of 2025)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2025.11.24
14:12:38 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 9
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, CJI
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present batch of appeals challenge the common
st
judgment and final order dated 21 April 2022, passed by a
learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad (hereinafter, “High Court”),
whereby the First Appeals filed by the claimants/Appellants
came to be dismissed .
FACTS
4. The facts, in brief , giving rise to the present appeals are as
given below:
4.1. The details of the land pertaining to each of the Appellants
have been provided at Sr. Nos. 1, 2, 4, 10, 14, 17, 19 and 20 in
chart available at paragraph 28 of the impugned judgment.
4.2. It appears that the land of the Appellants and other
adjoining lands were sought to be acquired in the 1990s under
the provisions of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act,
Page 2 of 9
(hereinafter, “Act of 1961”) for setting up an Industrial
1961
Area near Jintur town in Parbhani District.
th
4.3. On 16 January 1992, the Land Acquisition Officer &
Deputy Collector, Hingoli (hereinafter, “Land Acquisition
Officer”) issued a notice under sub-section (2) of Section 32 of
the Act of 1961.
th
4.4. On 6 December 1994, the Respondent-State took
possession of the Appellants’ land and an Award came to be
passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. In terms of the said
Award, the total area subject matter of the acquisition was 89
Hectares and 44 Are and the total compensation awarded was
Rs. 45,70, 508/-.
4.5. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation
awarded, the Appellants accepted the compensation under
protest and simultaneously filed a Reference under Section 18
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, “LA Act”) in the
year 1997.
th
4.6. Vide judgment and award dated 7 June 2007, in L.A.R.
No. 61 of 1997, the Court of Principal District Judge, Parbhani
(hereinafter, “Reference Court”), partly allowed the reference
with proportionate costs and enhance the compensation.
Page 3 of 9
4.7. The same was carried in an appeal, however, the batch of
appeals was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High
Court.
4.8. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeals came to be
filed by way of special leave.
SUBMISSIONS
5. We have heard Mr. Adith Satish Deshmukh, learned
counsel appearing for the Appellant, Mr. Shreenivas Patil,
learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 – State and
Ms. Shyamali Gadre, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 –
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation.
6. Mr. Deshmukh submitted that this Court vide judgment
th
and order dated 28 July 2025 in Civil Appeal No. 9870 of 2025
and connected matters titled as “ Manohar & Others v. The
State of Maharashtra and Others ” has allowed the appeals
of some of the other landowners whose cases were decided by
the common impugned judgment and order. He, therefore,
submits that on parity the present appeals also deserve to be
allowed.
7. Ms. Gadre appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 3,
on the contrary, submitted that there is distinction between the
Page 4 of 9
present cases and the cases which were decided by this Court
in the earlier round. She submitted that lands in the present
case are situated far away from the town of Jintur. She,
therefore, submitted that in the event this Court is inclined to
allow the appeals, the deduction to be made should be on
higher side.
DISCUSSION
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have
also perused the material placed on record.
9. We find that the contention as raised by the learned
counsel for Respondent No.3 is without substance.
10. It will be relevant to refer the paragraph 46 of the
impugned judgment and order, which reads as under:
“46. It is material to note that the acquired
lands are selected for acquisition. It is
evident from the testimony of the
claimants that the acquired lands are
more convenient for the establishment of
M.I.D.C. Jintur. Water facility is also
available at a short distance from the
acquired lands. The stock of evidence
produced by the claimants regarding the
proximity of the acquired lands with
Jintur town coupled with facilities
available and advantages is not any way
challenged by way of cross-examination.
Certainly, the argument advanced by the
learned counsel for the M.I.D.C. that the
acquired lands are at a distance of 5 k.m.
Page 5 of 9
away from the Jintur town cannot be
accepted . The claimants have also placed on
record the documentary evidence in the
nature of village map of Pungala and map of
Jintur town in order to show the proximity.
The learned reference Court has rightly
considered the village map of Pungala and
map of Jintur town and the location of
acquired lands in para 11 of the impugned
judgment. It is rightly held by the
reference Curt that the acquired lands are
adjacent to Jintur town. There are hills in
between the lands and village Pungala and
the acquired lands and they are near to
Jintur town rather than from Pungala. The
acquired lands are situated near T-point of
Nashik-Nirmal State Highway. It is also
observed by the reference Court that the
acquired land has N.A. potentiality. The
percolation tank is just opposite to the
acquired lands, it has sufficient water. As
such, selection of the acquired lands for
acquisition for establishment of M.I.D.C.
indicates their prime location as observed
by the reference Court .”
(emphasis added)
11. A perusal of the aforesaid reveals that, upon examining
the documentary evidence, the learned Single Judge of the
High Court concurred with the findings of the Reference Court
that the acquired lands are adjacent to the Jintur Town. It was
found that there are hills in between the lands and village
Pungala and the acquired lands are closer to Jintur town rather
than to Pungala. It was further found that the lands are
situated near the T-point of Nashik-Nirmal State Highway.
Page 6 of 9
It was also found that the land in question has N.A.
(non-agriculture) potentiality.
12. We find that most of the land involved in the present cases
is either irrigated land or just situated adjacent to the Highway.
th
13. Vide judgment and order dated 28 July 2025 in
Manohar (supra), this Court has held that the ten sale
exemplars placed before the Reference Court by the
claimants/landowners were found to be of small plots of the
land, each of them being less than 1 Hectare, in the Jintur
town. We had, therefore, while accepting the sale exemplars
concurred with the conclusion of the Reference Court that a
reasonable reduction requires to be made. Accordingly, while
granting compensation as per the highest sale exemplar dated
st
31 March 1990, having market value of Rs. 72,900/- per Acre,
we deemed it appropriate to apply a deduction of 20% i.e.,
Rs. 14,580 per Acre.
CONCLUSION
14. Taking an overall view of the matter, we are of the
considered view that the Appellants being similarly situated to
the ones before this Court in the case of Manohar (supra), the
present appeals also deserve to be allowed in the same terms.
Page 7 of 9
15. Pertinently, we had while issuing notice in some of the
present appeals, observed that the Appellants shall not be
entitled to the interest for the period of delay in filing the
Special Leave Petition. Accordingly, we find that the Appellants
shall not be entitled for the same.
16. In the result, we pass the following order:
i. The present batch of appeals are allowed;
st
ii.
The judgment and final order dated 21 April 2022,
passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court
is quashed and set aside;
th
iii. The judgment and award dated 7 June 2007 passed
by the Reference Court is quashed and set aside;
iv. We direct that the compensation granted to the
Appellants be enhanced from Rs. 32,000/- per Acre
to Rs. 58,320/- per Acre; and
v. We further direct that all other consequential
benefits of solatium and interest on the enhanced
compensation in terms of Section 23(1-A), 23(2) and
28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, be granted to
the Appellants. They will, however, not be entitled for
Page 8 of 9
any interest for the period of delay in filing the
present appeals.
17. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
.............................CJI
( B.R. GAVAI)
.............................................J
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 18, 2025.
Page 9 of 9
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2025 INSC 1348
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.___________ OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. of 2025)
Diary No. 25098 of 2025
Ashok s/o Vitthalrao Jagtap …Appellant
versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. …Respondents
with
CIVIL APPEAL NO.___________ OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. of 2025)
Diary No. 25113 of 2025
CIVIL APPEAL NO.___________ OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. of 2025)
Diary No. 25784 of 2025
CIVIL APPEAL NO.___________ OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 28986 of 2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.___________ OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.28985 of 2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.___________ OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.28984 of 2025)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.___________ OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 32771 of 2025)
and
CIVIL APPEAL NO.___________ OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 32770 of 2025)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2025.11.24
14:12:38 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 9
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, CJI
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The present batch of appeals challenge the common
st
judgment and final order dated 21 April 2022, passed by a
learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at
Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad (hereinafter, “High Court”),
whereby the First Appeals filed by the claimants/Appellants
came to be dismissed .
FACTS
4. The facts, in brief , giving rise to the present appeals are as
given below:
4.1. The details of the land pertaining to each of the Appellants
have been provided at Sr. Nos. 1, 2, 4, 10, 14, 17, 19 and 20 in
chart available at paragraph 28 of the impugned judgment.
4.2. It appears that the land of the Appellants and other
adjoining lands were sought to be acquired in the 1990s under
the provisions of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act,
Page 2 of 9
(hereinafter, “Act of 1961”) for setting up an Industrial
1961
Area near Jintur town in Parbhani District.
th
4.3. On 16 January 1992, the Land Acquisition Officer &
Deputy Collector, Hingoli (hereinafter, “Land Acquisition
Officer”) issued a notice under sub-section (2) of Section 32 of
the Act of 1961.
th
4.4. On 6 December 1994, the Respondent-State took
possession of the Appellants’ land and an Award came to be
passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. In terms of the said
Award, the total area subject matter of the acquisition was 89
Hectares and 44 Are and the total compensation awarded was
Rs. 45,70, 508/-.
4.5. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation
awarded, the Appellants accepted the compensation under
protest and simultaneously filed a Reference under Section 18
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter, “LA Act”) in the
year 1997.
th
4.6. Vide judgment and award dated 7 June 2007, in L.A.R.
No. 61 of 1997, the Court of Principal District Judge, Parbhani
(hereinafter, “Reference Court”), partly allowed the reference
with proportionate costs and enhance the compensation.
Page 3 of 9
4.7. The same was carried in an appeal, however, the batch of
appeals was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the High
Court.
4.8. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeals came to be
filed by way of special leave.
SUBMISSIONS
5. We have heard Mr. Adith Satish Deshmukh, learned
counsel appearing for the Appellant, Mr. Shreenivas Patil,
learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 – State and
Ms. Shyamali Gadre, learned counsel for Respondent No.3 –
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation.
6. Mr. Deshmukh submitted that this Court vide judgment
th
and order dated 28 July 2025 in Civil Appeal No. 9870 of 2025
and connected matters titled as “ Manohar & Others v. The
State of Maharashtra and Others ” has allowed the appeals
of some of the other landowners whose cases were decided by
the common impugned judgment and order. He, therefore,
submits that on parity the present appeals also deserve to be
allowed.
7. Ms. Gadre appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 3,
on the contrary, submitted that there is distinction between the
Page 4 of 9
present cases and the cases which were decided by this Court
in the earlier round. She submitted that lands in the present
case are situated far away from the town of Jintur. She,
therefore, submitted that in the event this Court is inclined to
allow the appeals, the deduction to be made should be on
higher side.
DISCUSSION
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have
also perused the material placed on record.
9. We find that the contention as raised by the learned
counsel for Respondent No.3 is without substance.
10. It will be relevant to refer the paragraph 46 of the
impugned judgment and order, which reads as under:
“46. It is material to note that the acquired
lands are selected for acquisition. It is
evident from the testimony of the
claimants that the acquired lands are
more convenient for the establishment of
M.I.D.C. Jintur. Water facility is also
available at a short distance from the
acquired lands. The stock of evidence
produced by the claimants regarding the
proximity of the acquired lands with
Jintur town coupled with facilities
available and advantages is not any way
challenged by way of cross-examination.
Certainly, the argument advanced by the
learned counsel for the M.I.D.C. that the
acquired lands are at a distance of 5 k.m.
Page 5 of 9
away from the Jintur town cannot be
accepted . The claimants have also placed on
record the documentary evidence in the
nature of village map of Pungala and map of
Jintur town in order to show the proximity.
The learned reference Court has rightly
considered the village map of Pungala and
map of Jintur town and the location of
acquired lands in para 11 of the impugned
judgment. It is rightly held by the
reference Curt that the acquired lands are
adjacent to Jintur town. There are hills in
between the lands and village Pungala and
the acquired lands and they are near to
Jintur town rather than from Pungala. The
acquired lands are situated near T-point of
Nashik-Nirmal State Highway. It is also
observed by the reference Court that the
acquired land has N.A. potentiality. The
percolation tank is just opposite to the
acquired lands, it has sufficient water. As
such, selection of the acquired lands for
acquisition for establishment of M.I.D.C.
indicates their prime location as observed
by the reference Court .”
(emphasis added)
11. A perusal of the aforesaid reveals that, upon examining
the documentary evidence, the learned Single Judge of the
High Court concurred with the findings of the Reference Court
that the acquired lands are adjacent to the Jintur Town. It was
found that there are hills in between the lands and village
Pungala and the acquired lands are closer to Jintur town rather
than to Pungala. It was further found that the lands are
situated near the T-point of Nashik-Nirmal State Highway.
Page 6 of 9
It was also found that the land in question has N.A.
(non-agriculture) potentiality.
12. We find that most of the land involved in the present cases
is either irrigated land or just situated adjacent to the Highway.
th
13. Vide judgment and order dated 28 July 2025 in
Manohar (supra), this Court has held that the ten sale
exemplars placed before the Reference Court by the
claimants/landowners were found to be of small plots of the
land, each of them being less than 1 Hectare, in the Jintur
town. We had, therefore, while accepting the sale exemplars
concurred with the conclusion of the Reference Court that a
reasonable reduction requires to be made. Accordingly, while
granting compensation as per the highest sale exemplar dated
st
31 March 1990, having market value of Rs. 72,900/- per Acre,
we deemed it appropriate to apply a deduction of 20% i.e.,
Rs. 14,580 per Acre.
CONCLUSION
14. Taking an overall view of the matter, we are of the
considered view that the Appellants being similarly situated to
the ones before this Court in the case of Manohar (supra), the
present appeals also deserve to be allowed in the same terms.
Page 7 of 9
15. Pertinently, we had while issuing notice in some of the
present appeals, observed that the Appellants shall not be
entitled to the interest for the period of delay in filing the
Special Leave Petition. Accordingly, we find that the Appellants
shall not be entitled for the same.
16. In the result, we pass the following order:
i. The present batch of appeals are allowed;
st
ii.
The judgment and final order dated 21 April 2022,
passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court
is quashed and set aside;
th
iii. The judgment and award dated 7 June 2007 passed
by the Reference Court is quashed and set aside;
iv. We direct that the compensation granted to the
Appellants be enhanced from Rs. 32,000/- per Acre
to Rs. 58,320/- per Acre; and
v. We further direct that all other consequential
benefits of solatium and interest on the enhanced
compensation in terms of Section 23(1-A), 23(2) and
28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, be granted to
the Appellants. They will, however, not be entitled for
Page 8 of 9
any interest for the period of delay in filing the
present appeals.
17. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
.............................CJI
( B.R. GAVAI)
.............................................J
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 18, 2025.
Page 9 of 9