Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2005 DAILYLAW 1866 (BOM)

DNYANOBA NINGRAM BUDHODKAR v. THE STATE OF MAH

FA/533/2005 · 2026-08-31

body2005

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

FA 533/05 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 7 FIRST APPEAL NO. 533 OF 2005 DNYANOBA NINGRAM BUDHODKAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAH ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A.V. Indrale-Patil AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. A.D. Wange ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. Dated : August 31, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. As the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1982, heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. By this appeal, the appellant/original claimant assails the judgment and award dated 5.2.2005 passed by the learned III Ad-hoc Additional District Judge, Latur in LAR No. 106/1987, whereby the reference court has not granted compensation as claimed by the claimant and partly allowed the reference. 3. The land of the claimant admeasuring 54 R. from Survey No. 22 situated at village Budhoda, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur was acquired for the purpose of distribution of 1980 RF of Tawarja Project. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 1.4.1982. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) has passed the award on 23.3.1984 and granted compensation at the rate of Rs.14,000/- per H. Being dissatisfied with the award of the SLAO, the claimant filed an application before the Collector for referring the matter under section 18 of the Act for proper determination of the market value of the acquired land. The learned 2026:BHC-AUG:41126 FA 533/05 2 reference court after going through the evidence and examining the record, enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.16,000/- per H. Being dissatisfied with the same, the present appeal is filed by the original claimant. 4. Mr. A.V. Indrale-Patil, learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that as regards enhancement is concerned, before the reference court claimant relied upon sale instance of other village which was 3-4 k.m. away, but the SLAO has considered the sale instance from the same village from where the lands were acquired. The only issue agitated by the learned counsel is that section 23(1-a) of the Act came to be amended on 24.9.1984 and therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Raghubir Singh reported in 1989 AIR (SC) 1933 and in the case of Panna Lal Ghosh and Ors. Vs. Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 2004 1179, the claimant is entitled to receive 12% component and 15% more solatium as only 15% solatium was granted. He therefore prays to allow the appeal. 5. Per contra, Mr. A.D. Wange, learned AGP submits that as the amendment was effected on 30.9.1984 and in this case award was passed by the SLAO on 23.3.1984 and therefore, the amendment cannot be given effect in the present case. He submits that the reference court has already granted 15% solatium. He therefore prays to dismiss the appeal. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the record and proceedings, I have also perused the impugned judgment and award. The reference court has decided the reference vide it’s order dated 5.5.2005. The clause 23(1-A) of the Act is amended on 30.9.1984 and without considering the amendment only 15% FA 533/05 3 solatium was granted by the reference court. However, in view of the the law laid down in the cases cited supra, the claimant is entitled to receive the component at the rate of Rs.12% and 15% more solatium and therefore, to that extent, the order passed by the learned reference court is modified as claimant is entitled to receive component at the rate of 12% and 15% more solatium. 7. In view of the above, I pass the following order. O R D E R (i) The appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and award of the reference court is modified and the appellant/claimant is entitled to receive component at the rate of 12% and also entitled to receive solatium at the rate of 30% i.e. more solatium at the rate of 15%. (iii) Rest of the award is confirmed. (iv) The modified award be drawn up accordingly. (v) Pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. ) ssc/