fa1232.13- -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 1232 OF 2013 Suresh s/o Nagappa Ambarkhane and another ...Appellants Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ….. Mr. Ashwin V. Sakolkar a/w Mr. H.B. Nandagavale h/f Mr. V. G. Sakolkar, advocate for the appellants Mr. S. G. Sangle, A.G.P. for the respondent No.1 Mr. A.S. Bajaj, advocate for respondent No.2 ….. AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 2114 OF 2014 The Executive Engineer, MSEB, Osmanabad ...Appellants Versus Suresh s/o Nagappa Ambarkhane and others ...Respondents ….. Mr. A.S. Bajaj, advocate for the appellant Mr. Ashwin V. Sakolkar a/w Mr. H.B. Nandagavale h/f Mr. V. G. Sakolkar, advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. S. G. Sangle, A.G.P. for the respondent No.3 ….. CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATED : 8th MAY, 2026 O R D E R :- 1. The first appeal No. 1232 of 2013 is preferred by the claimant whereas the first appeal No. 2114 of 2014 is preferred by the 2026:BHC-AUG:35493 fa1232.13- -2- acquiring authority against the one and the same judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court, Udgir, District Latur in Land Acquisition Reference No. 258 of 2010 (Old No. 748 of 2002), dated 23.11.2012, whereby the claim of the claimants was partly allowed by enhancing the amount of compensation. 2. The land bearing block No. 23/4, admeasuring 78 R, situated at Village Loni, Taluka Udgir, District Latur, was acquired for the purpose of installation of a 33 KV sub-station of MSEB at Loni, Taluka Udgir, District Latur, as per the notification issued and published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "L.A. Act"), dated 15.04.1999. 3. By final award, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation @ Rs. 21.17 per sq. ft., for acquired land whereas the learned Reference Court awarded the compensation @ Rs.62.50 per sq. ft.. 4. Learned Advocate for the claimants pointed out the pleadings, evidence, grounds of objection raised in the appeal and the reasons and findings recorded in the impugned judgment and award. He submitted that the sale exemplar at Exhibit 26, which is relied upon by the Reference Court, is not of the highest sale consideration. It is fa1232.13- -3- pointed out that the sale exemplar at Exh. 24 dated 13.07.1998 is of the highest sale consideration and it is a comparable sale exemplar. He further submitted that the sale exemplar Exh.42 sought to be relied upon by the acquiring authority is of the lowest consideration and therefore, it cannot be relied upon as per settled law. He also submitted that the pursis filed by the acquiring authority for placing on record additional evidence of photographs of acquired land cannot be accepted, as those are false documents. It is submitted to reject the said pursis. For that procedure, as per Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for adducing additional evidence is not followed. He further pointed out that the rental compensation was not awarded even though the possession of acquired land was taken on 26.8.1998 and notification under Section 4 of L.A. Act was issued on 15.4.1999. He prayed to award it 9% interest on the amount of compensation. He prayed to dismiss the appeal filed by the acquiring authority and allow the appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. 5. Learned advocate for the appellants-claimants placed reliance on the following authorities:- i) Krishan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others, AIR 2025 SC 2468, in which it is held that irrespective of whether the sale deed fa1232.13- -4- relied upon pertains to Kukrola or Fazalwas, the same set of exemplars must be applied uniformly across both villages. Artificial boundaries created for administrative convenience cannot be allowed to obstruct the application of the fundamental principle of fairness. ii) S. Shankaraiah through GPA Holder and others vs. Land Acquisition Officer and revenue Divisional Officer Peddapali Karimnagar Dist. and others, AIROnline 2022 SC 862, in which it is held that the purpose for which the land was acquired is a highly relevant factor in determining its true market value. If the land is acquired for an overarching purpose like coal excavation or railways where the entire acreage is utilized without requiring further sub- division (such as laying internal roads, sewage systems, or leaving spaces for public amenities), the standard deduction for "development" is completely unwarranted. III) First Appeal No. 1280 of 2011 and the Cross objection therein, in which a similar issue, as is involved in these appeals, was involved and this Court has held that the claimants are entitled to enhanced amount of compensation. 6. Learned Advocate for the acquiring authority in First Appeal No. 2114 of 2014, strongly opposed the appeal filed by the claimants fa1232.13- -5- and pointed out the grounds of objections raised in the First Appeal No. 2114 of 2014 filed by the Acquiring Authority that there are no justifiable reasons to award exorbitant amount of compensation. He submitted that the learned Reference Court ought to have deducted 75% of the amount out of sale consideration of sale exemplar at Exh.26 as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Haridwar Development Authority, Haridwar vs. Raghubeer Singh etc. 2010 LAC 354. The Non-Agricultural (for short N.A.) order of acquired land was not acted upon in respect of the acquired land. It was not N.A. land. He is pointed out the photographs of the acquired land submitted with written notes of argument to show that it was not developed land. He further pointed out that the interest awarded by the Reference Court is not as per the provisions of the L.A. Act. He also pointed out the sale exemplar Exh.42 which can be considered as reliable evidence adduced by the acquiring authority, but sale exemplar Exh.24 is of different village Somnathpur cannot be relied upon. He lastly submitted to dismiss the appeal filed by the claimants and allow the appeal filed by the acquiring authority by setting aside the impugned judgment and award by reducing the exorbitant amount of compensation. 7. Learned advocate for the acquiring authority placed reliance on the following authorities:- fa1232.13- -6- I) V. Subrahmanya Rao vs. Land Acquisition Zone Officer, (2004) 10 SCC 640, in which it is held that , the Supreme Court of India held that the best evidence of market value for acquired land is the sale transaction of the exact land in question to which the claimant is a party. II) Special Tahsildar Land Acquisition Vishakapatnam vs A Mangala Gowri (Smt.), (1991) 4 SCC 218, in which it is held that the price paid in bonafide sales of the same or adjacent lands within a reasonable proximate time of the acquisition notification is the best evidence to establish market value. III) Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another, (1988) 3 SCC 751 in which it is held the foundational legal parameters for determining compensation for acquired land is the "market value". It is the price, which the willing buyer would pay to the willing seller, and outlined several core principles governing land valuation. 8. Nobody will dispute the law laid down in the above authorities. However, it is well settled that facts of the each case are decisive, to which law is to be applied. However, keeping in mind the guidelines, principles and law laid down in above authorities, this Court proceed fa1232.13- -7- to re-appreciate the evidence with reasons and findings in the impugned judgment. 9. The claimants filed an affidavit of examination-in-chief at Exh. 17 and reiterated the material contentions raised in the claim petition. He deposed that village Loni is merged into the Municipal Council, Udgir. There are many housing colonies, saw mills, Udgir Petrol Pump and Mukkawar Petrol Pump. Udgir is a developed city having Municipal Council, as there is a MIDC at Udgir etc.. The acquired land is adjacent to Udgir Nanded State Highway. It is not necessary to reproduce his entire deposition. 10. The claimants examined P.W. 2 Sanjaykumar Biradar to prove the sale exemplar at Exh. 26. He deposed that he was a witness to it. The claimants examined an expert valuer of land P.W. 3 Nandkumar Pokalwar. He deposed that on 5.6.2000, he visited the acquired land and as per his experience and facts noted there, he determined the value of the acquired land @ Rs. 192.23 per sq. ft., as per valuation report at Exh. 29. He also deposed that the land is adjacent to Udgir Nanded State Highway. 11. The claimants are relying upon the documentary evidence of the sale exemplar at Exh.23 to 26, final award at Exh. 21, the E- fa1232.13- -8- statement at Exh. 22, valuation report of valuer at Exh.29, the N.A. order of the acquired land at Exh. 34 dated 12.07.1992 and the village map of Loni at Exh. 39. 12. Perused the reasons and findings in the impugned judgment along with the evidence of both sides, particularly all sale exemplars of both sides. It is well settled that the sale exemplar of the highest sale consideration should be relied upon if it is bonafide and comparable sale exemplar. When sale exemplars of the same village or vicinity are bonafide and comparable valuation report of acquired land cannot be relied upon as argued by Mr. Bajaj, learned advocate for the acquiring authority. 13. The comparative chart of sale exemplars relied upon by the claimants are as follows:- Sr. No Exh. No Date Village Survey No. / Pot No. Area Considerat ion amount (Rs.) Rate per sq. ft. (Rs.) 1 23 19/06/1991 Udgir 2-3-312/1 80 × 30 2400 4,34,400/- 180.83 2 24 13/07/1998 Somnathpur plot No 316 90 × 15 1350 2,00,000/- 148.14 3 25 20/04/1998 Udgir 308 Plot no 08 60 × 22.6 1350 1,90,000/- 140.74 4 26 26/06/1997 Loni 18(123) plot no 04 37 × 30 1005 1,05,000/- 104.47 fa1232.13- -9- 14. The acquiring authority has also relied upon the sale exemplar as shown in the following chart:- Sr. No Exh. No Date Village Survey No Area Considerat ion amount (Rs.) Rate per sq. ft. (Rs.) 1 42 13/10/1997 Loni 128/A/2 Plot No.69, 70 and 71 90 × 40 3600 33,000/- 9.16 15. The sale exemplars are relevant and admissible under Section 51-A of the L.A. Act. The contents thereof need not be proved as per Section 59 of Indian Evidence Act corresponding to Section 54 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Thus proof of contents of sale- exemplar is dispensed with. 16. The Acquiring Authority is relying upon the sale exemplar at Exh. 42 dated 13.10.1997, by which the N.A. plots Nos. 69,70, and 71 from survey number 128/A/2 of village Loni, admeasuring a total area 3600 sq. ft. were sold for a consideration of Rs.33,000/- (i.e. Rs.9.16 per sq. ft.). It is not the sale exemplar with the highest sale consideration as compared to other sale exemplars shown in the above chart. Therefore, Exh.42 cannot be relied upon. Further, the acquiring authority filed a pursis for placing on record additional evidence in the form of recent photographs of acquired land which deserves to be rejected. It is because for determining the market fa1232.13- -10- value of the acquired land, evidence of recent photographs submitted at the time of argument cannot be relied upon. 17. The learned Reference Court relied upon the sale exemplar at Exh.26 pertaining to the land situated at same village Loni. It did not accept the sale exemplar at Exh. 24 which is the highest consideration of the lands situated at village Somnathpur, which is adjacent village to Loni. The claimants’ land is situated at Village Loni whereas the land in sale exemplar Exh. 24 is situated in Village Somnathpur. There is a distance of 4 to 5 kilometers between these two villages. Therefore, when the sale exemplar of village Loni is proved the sale exemplar at Exh.24 of Somnathpur cannot be relied upon. 18. An order for permission to use of the acquired land as non agricultural (for short “N.A.”) is at Exh. 34. However, acquired land was not developed into separate plots. The sanctioned layout plan/map is not filed on record by the claimants. The N.A. order was conditional providing that the permission Exh.34 was not acted upon within a year, it would became ineffective. The sanctioned lay out was not produced on record. It was not proved by claimants that acquired land was actually used as N.A. land within a year. Therefore It is not reliable and acceptable evidence. fa1232.13- -11- 19. The claimants oral evidence that acquired land is situated in developed area along with Udgir-Nanded Highway, was not shaken in the cross examination thereby establishing that the claimants’ land had N.A. and commercial potentiality . The commercial and N.A. potentiality of the claimants’ land is proved as it is adjacent to the developed vicinity along the Udgir-Nanded Highway. 20. The sale exemplar at Exh.26 is of the highest sale consideration. Considering the matter before this Court and on re- appreciation of entire evidence with peculiar set of facts, when the plot in the sale exemplar at Exh. 26 was N.A. plot of 1005 sq. ft., it would be proper to deduct 30% of the sale consideration for making it comparable with big chunk of 78 Are acquired land. However for development of non-agricultural use for internal roads, and open space, drainage, etc. such deduction is not necessary as held in the case of S. Shankaraiah (supra). It is because for a 33 KV Sub- station, such development including internal road, leaving open space etc. is not necessary. The learned Reference Court deducted 50% amount out of sale exemplar Exh.26 which is not justified in view of the above reasons. Further, the claimants’ acquired land is adjacent to developed area along the Udgir Nanded State Highway and, therefore, it has commercial and non-agricultural potentiality. If fa1232.13- -12- 30% amount is deducted towards big size of the acquired land and 10% is added for escalation of prices then the sale exemplar of same village Loni at Exh.26 becomes bonafide and comparable to claimants’ acquired land. 21. As per sale exemplar Exh.26, the sale consideration was @ Rs.104/- per sq. ft. and it was executed on 26.06.1997. The notification under Section 4 of L.A. Act was issued on 15.4.1999. The sale exemplar was executed 01 year, 09 months and 20 days before issuance of notification under Section 4 of L.A. Act. Therefore, excluding base year, considering commercial and N.A. potentiality of acquired land 10% deserves to be added for escalation in price of the said land for a year. If 10% is added in Rs.104/- then it comes to Rs.114.4/-. If 30% of the amount i.e. Rs.34.32 is deducted then it comes to Rs.80.08/- per sq.ft. Thus, the claimants are entitled to compensation @ Rs.80.08/- per sq. ft., which is rounded off to Rs. 80/- per sq. ft. which was the market value/price of the acquired land at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the L. A. Act. The learned Reference Court erred in deducting 50% of the amount and awarded total 20% escalation without excluding base year and determined the market value erroneously. 22. For the reasons discussed above, the arguments of learned advocate for the respondent Shri A.S. Bajaj that 75% of the amount fa1232.13- -13- should be deducted to arrive at the market price of the acquired land is not acceptable as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Shankaraiah (supra). However, the law laid down in the case of Haridwar (supra), is not applicable as the facts of this case are different, as held above, as the claimants’ evidence is not disproved. Considering all the above reasons, there is no substance in the grounds of objections raised in the appeal filed by the acquiring authority. 23. As far as the award of statutory interest by the Reference Court in the operative part of the impugned judgment from 05.11.1999 to 05.02.2001 @ 12% per annum is concerned, the same deserves to be set aside and corrected. The claimants are entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of passing of final award for a period of one year and thereafter @ 15% per annum till the realization of the entire amount as per the provisions of L.A. Act. 24. The possession of the claimant’s acquired land was taken on 26.08.1998. The notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act was issued on 15.04.1999. The claimants are entitled to rental compensation because even though they have applied to the concerned Collector for rental compensation as per the policy of the State Government, it was not awarded. This is because the claimants are farmers, and the farmers are the weaker section of society, fa1232.13- -14- except the exception. In such a fact situation, it would not be proper to direct to relegate the claimants-farmers for getting the rental compensation from Collector. 25. Considering the peculiar set of facts as discussed above, though there is no express provision in the Land Acquisition Act for paying rental compensation for taking possession of the land prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, the claimants are entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of taking possession of acquired land till the date of issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, as per the law laid down in the case of Shankarrao Bhagwantrao Patil and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2022) 15 SCC 657. The claimants are entitled to rental compensation @ 9% per annum from the date of possession till the date of award. 26. The appeal filed by the claimants deserves to be partly allowed. There is no substance in the grounds of objections raised in the appeal filed by the acquiring authority. Therefore, it deserves to be dismissed. The impugned judgment and award deserves to be partly set aside and modified as under. Hence, the following order:- O R D E R I. The first appeal filed by the acquiring authority is dismissed. fa1232.13- -15- II. The First Appeal filed by the claimants is partly allowed. III. The impugned judgment and award are partly set aside and modified as under:- a) The claimants are entitled to compensation @ Rs.80/- per sq. ft. for their acquired land including the earlier amount of compensation awarded and received by them, along with all statutory benefits like interest, the additional component and solatium, as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. b) The claimants are also entitled to rental compensation @ 9% per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of taking of possession i.e. 26.8.1998 till the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of L.A. Act, date 15.04.1999. c) It is clarified that the claimants are entitled to interest @ 9% per annum for one year from the date of the award and thereafter @ 15% per annum till realization of the entire amount. IV. It is clarified that the appellants/ claimants are not entitled to interest for the period of delay, if any, condoned by this Court. V. The respondent-Acquiring Authority is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation along with all fa1232.13- -16- statutory benefits like interest, component and solatium as per the provisions of Land Acquisition Act,1894 in this Court, within six months. On depositing the said amount, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the same. VI. If court fee is not sufficiently paid, the appellants shall pay deficit court fees. On receiving the same, the enhanced amount of compensation be paid to the claimants. VII. The claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount deposited in this court with accrued interest thereon. VIII. Award be drawn up accordingly. IX. Record and Proceedings be sent back. 27. Pending civil application Nos. 2010 of 2026 and 13924 of 2026 in first appeal No. 2114 of 2014 are also disposed of. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) rlj/