A prior compensation ruling applies where the lands share the same acquisition notification and location.

The respondent’s land at Village Dongargaon, Taluka Mawal, District Pune, was acquired for excavation of materials for the Mumbai–Pune Expressway.

Following a Section 4 notification dated 9 December 1996, the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs. 14.50 per square metre.

On a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Reference Court enhanced compensation to Rs. 500 per square metre by judgment dated 31 May 2007.

The State appealed, contending that the enhanced rate was excessive.

The claimant relied on a Division Bench decision concerning the same acquisition, which had upheld compensation of Rs. 500 per square metre for land at Village Kusgaon.

1. Whether the Reference Court’s enhancement of compensation to Rs. 500 per square metre for the acquired land at Dongargaon was justified

2. Whether the Division Bench’s decision concerning land acquired under the same notification and from the same location supported dismissal of the State’s appeal

The Court considered Sections 4 and 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which respectively concern the preliminary notification for acquisition and a reference to the court for determination of compensation.

It applied the principle that a judgment determining compensation may be relied upon where it relates to the same notification and land acquired from the same location.

The Court also relied on the Division Bench judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Nequib Yahyabhiy Kachwalla, First Appeal No. 1766 of 2008, which upheld compensation at Rs. 500 per square metre for land acquired in the same acquisition.

The Reference Court had assessed the evidence and valuation material, rejected unsuitable sale instances and other valuation methods, considered the land’s residential potential, and deducted development charges before fixing compensation at Rs. 500 per square metre.

The High Court noted that the Division Bench had already examined the valuation evidence and upheld the same rate in a matter arising from the same acquisition.

Because the relevant notification and location tests were satisfied, the Court found no basis to interfere with the Reference Court’s determination.

It directed the Reference Court to make the necessary orders for disbursement of the amount held in fixed deposit and liquidation of the bank guarantee, with disbursement to be made as specified in the award.