Dismissed¶¶42

The State of Mah and Anr. v. Rawan Satwaji Kamble

Bombay HC7 Jul 2025CA/11952/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land acquisition compensation enhancement — Urdhav Manar Medium Project — village Sangavi, Taluka Ahmedpur, District Latur — Section 4 notification 09.02.1999 — SLAO award 20.04.2001 @ Rs.60/- per sq.m. enhanced to Rs.180/- per sq.m. by Reference Court under Section 18 L.A. Act — sale instances 06.11.1996 Exhibits-31, 32 — no illegality or perversity — State's first appeals against LAR Nos. 498, 502, 504, 508 of 2002 dismissed — delay condoned — court fee refund — Kishore C. Sant, J. — 07-07-2025.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants-State; impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court confirmed and first appeals dismissed, with refund of court fees to the appellants as per law. ¶¶42

The State of Mah and Anr. Vs Rawan Satwaji Kamble — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants-State; impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court confirmed and first appeals dismissed, with refund of court fees to the appellants as per law.

¶¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court (enhancing compensation from Rs.60/- to Rs.180/- per square meter) suffers from illegality or perversity so as to deserve to be quashed and set aside, as urged by the State.

¶¶31

Court's answer

No illegality or perversity is found in the impugned award; the Reference Court rightly took into consideration the evidence of sale instances, and nothing was pointed out showing those sale instances were wrongly relied upon or that they post-dated the Section 4 notification or fell within one year prior to its issuance.

¶¶36

Ratio / Principle

Delay in filing stands condoned for the reasons stated in the applications; the civil applications are allowed and disposed of, and the first appeals are to be registered.

¶¶23

Key takeaways

No case is made out calling for interference in the impugned judgment and award; the impugned judgment and award is confirmed.ratio¶¶41
The first appeals stand dismissed.ratio¶¶42
The appellants are entitled to refund of court fees as per law; no order as to costs; pending civil applications disposed of.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), Kishore C. Sant, J.: Delay in the State's first appeals against the common judgment and award dated 22.04.2008 of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Ahmedpur (District Latur) in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 498, 502, 504 and 508 of 2002 condoned and appeals registered, then dismissed. Lands of respondent-claimants at village Sangavi, Taluka Ahmedpur, District Latur were acquired for the Urdhav Manar Medium Project (Section 4 notification dated 09.02.1999, gazetted 12.11.1998); the SLAO awarded Rs.60/- per square meter on 20.04.2001, and the Reference Court under Section 18 of the L.A. Act enhanced compensation to Rs.180/- per square meter relying on sale instances dated 06.11.1996 (Exhibits-31 and 32: plots 40x50 sold for Rs.2,80,000/- and 40x40 for Rs.2,00,000/-) and the evidence of valuer Mr. Nandkumar S. Pokalwar. The High Court found no illegality or perversity; the sale instances predated the Section 4 notification and nothing showed they fell after it or within one year prior thereto; the impugned judgment and award was confirmed, with refund of court fees to the appellants and no order as to costs.

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:18175

¶2

82-CA-11952-12.odt

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11952 OF 2012 IN FAST/9898/2012 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11953 OF 2012 IN FAST/9898/2012

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER VERSUS RAWAN SATWAJI KAMBLE

¶7

… AND

¶8

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11966 OF 2012 IN FAST/10001/2012 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11967 OF 2012 IN FAST/10001/2012

¶9

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER VERSUS FULAJI KISAN KABLE AND OTHERS

¶10

… AND

¶11

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11968 OF 2012 IN FAST/9998/2012 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11969 OF 2012 IN FAST/9998/2012

¶12

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER VERSUS RAMCHANDRA MANIK MEKALE AND OTHERS

¶13

… AND FIRST APPEAL NO.49 OF 2018

¶14

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER VERSUS MALHARI GIRJAPPA WADKAR

¶15

Mr. S. B. Jadhav, AGP for Applicants/Appellants in all matters

¶16

CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J. DATE : 07-07-2025

¶17

PER COURT:-

¶18

Not on board. Taken on board as connected civil application

¶19

No.11952 of 2012 in FAST/9898/2012 is on board.

¶20

82-CA-11952-12.odt

¶21

¶22

ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATIONS FOR DELAY:

¶23

For the reasons stated in the applications, delay stands condoned. The civil applications are allowed and disposed of. First appeals be registered.

¶24

ORDER IN FIRST APPEALS:

¶25

All these appeals are filed by the State challenging the common judgment and award passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Ahmedpur, District Latur, in respective proceeding bearing Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 498, 502, 504 and 508 of 2002, dated 22.04.2008.

¶26

The lands of respondent-claimants came to be acquired for Urdhav Manar Medium Project. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “L.A.Act”) came to be issued on 09.02.1999 and published in Government Gazette on 12.11.1998. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) passed an award on 20.04.2001. The SLAO awarded compensation @ Rs.60/- per square meter for the acquired property plot/open space. The respondents/claimants are the owners of the acquired houses and open plots of the village Sangavi, Taluka Ahmedpur, District Latur.

¶27

Being dissatisfied by the award of inadequate compensation, the claimants filed references under Section 18 of the L.A.Act. The learned Reference Court awarded compensation @ Rs.180/- per

¶28

82-CA-11952-12.odt

¶29

¶30

square meter for the acquired properties.

¶31

Learned A.P.P. vehemently argued that the learned Reference Court has failed to appreciate that there was no material produced by the claimants to show that the compensation awarded by the SLAO was inadequate. In fact, the SLAO while determining the compensation amount had taken into consideration prevailing market rate. The said market rate was decided by taking into consideration the rate prevailing in the village for house properties. It is also considered life of construction of the house, quality of the construction, etc. Necessary evidence was placed before the Reference Court by the appellants. However, the same is not considered. He, thus, submits that the judgment and award impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶32

On going through the impugned judgment and award, this Court finds that the learned Reference Court considered that near the village, the facilities are available like, higher education, D.Ed and B.Ed. college in the vicinity of 9 kms. The village is connected with electricity and water supply. There is a sugar factory only at 3 kms. distance. In 1995, the plot was fetching amount of Rs.500/per square meter. It is considered that the State has put-forth the case that the inspection was properly done by the authorities. The joint measurement of the acquired plots was taken. The market value of the acquired property was determined as per the DSR

¶33

82-CA-11952-12.odt

¶34

¶35

(District Schedule Rates) . The claimants had examined one Engineer, namely, Mr. Nandkumar S. Pokalwar (Valuer of the acquired properties). However, the evidence was accepted that it was not proved by examining any witness by the respondents/present appellants. The Court has further considered the sale instances dated 06.11.1996 at Exhibits-31 and 32, which show that the plot admeasuring 40x50 was sold for consideration of Rs.2,80,000/- and another plot admeasuring 40x40 was sold for consideration of Rs.2,00,000/-. It is, on this, the learned Reference Court appreciated the evidence and passed the award.

¶36

This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the award impugned. The Reference Court has rightly taken into consideration the evidence of sale instances. Nothing is pointed out that the sale instances were wrongly relied by the Court. It is also seen that the notification under Section 4 of the L.A.Act was issued on 09.02.1999. The sale instances dated 06.11.1996 were of the period earlier than that. Nothing is shown that the said sale instances are of the period after issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the L.A.Act or within one year prior to the date of issuance of notification.

¶37

Learned A.G.P. has also fairly placed on record a copy of the order passed in National Lok Adalat held on 30.04.2023, wherein some other first appeals arising out of acquisition proceedings

¶38

82-CA-11952-12.odt

¶39

¶40

were settled. The SLAO has placed on record a copy of the order passed in First Appeal No.1082 of 2016 and other connected matters, dated 30.04.2023.

¶41

Considering the above aspects, this Court finds that no case is made out calling for an interference in the impugned judgment and award. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award is confirmed.

¶42

The first appeals stand dismissed.

¶43

Pending civil applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶44

No order as to costs.

¶45

The appellants shall be entitled for refund of the court fees, as per law.

¶46

[KISHORE C. SANT] JUDGE

¶47

rrd

The State of Mah and Anr. v. Rawan Satwaji Kamble

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Mah and Anr. v. Rawan Satwaji Kamble

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Shrimant More Vs the Executive Engineer Latur Minor Irrigation Division Latur

Shrimant Nagorao More Vs the Executive Enginer Latur Minorirrigation, Division Latur and Anr.

Waghambar Devrao More and Anr. Vs the Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur and Anr.

The State of Mah and Anr. Vs Rawan Satwaji Kamble

The State of Mah and Anr. Vs Ramchandra Manik Mekale and Ors.

The State of Mah and Anr. Vs Ramchandra Manik Mekale and Ors.