1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. 906 FIRST APPEAL NO.1179 OF 2019 Sahebrao Kishanrao More (Died) Through LRs : Sakhubai and Others ..Appellants Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors ..Respondents ….. Shri. Santosh S. Patil, Advocate for Appellants Smt. M. L. Sangit, AGP for the Respondent – State. Shri. A. S. Shelke, Advocate for Respondent No.3 ….. CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. Dated : JULY 02, 2026 FINAL ORDER :- . This is the First Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘L.A. Act’) by the Orig. Claimant for further enhancement in the compensation towards acquisition of his land admeasuring 0-Hectare, 60-Ares (6000 Sq. Meters) from Survey No.316/B situated at village Sonkhed, Tal. Loha, Dist. Nanded for the purpose of 33 KV Sub-station. 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short, ‘SLAO’) published Section – 4 Notification on 15.03.1998. The Award was declared on 14.07.1999 determining the compensation @ Rs.49/- per Sq. Meter. Being not satisfied with the said rate, the Appellants - Claimant filed the Land Acquisition Reference No.657/2003 (Old LAR No.29/2001) for 2026:BHC-AUG:25490 2 enhanced compensation. The Appellant led the evidence in support of his claim. No evidence was led by the Respondents. Considering the evidence on record, the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.123/- per Sq. Meter with the consequential statutory benefits. 3. Heard the learned Advocate for the Appellant, the learned Advocate for the Acquiring Body and the learned AGP for the State. With their assistance, perused the papers on record. A) It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellant that, the SLAO collected near about six (6) sale instances, which were of higher rate, however awarded minimum rate of compensation. The learned Reference Court should have considered the sale instances mentioned in the Award. It is further submitted that, the learned Reference Court did not consider the second sale instance relied upon by the Appellant which was from the same village. The learned Reference Court considered only one sale instance below Exh.25. The acquired land had non agricultural potentiality and therefore, more compensation ought to have been determined. He submits that, the Appeal be allowed. B) It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Acquiring Body that, Exh. 26 was not the sale-deed. It was the transaction on the stamp 3 paper which was not valid and therefore, the learned Reference Court has rightly not considered the same. The learned Reference Court considered the sale instance - Exh.25 which was relied upon by the Appellant - Claimant and has rightly determined the compensation. It is submitted that, the land was situated in the rural area and therefore, no escalation was considered by the learned Reference Court. In support of his submissions, he relied on the decision in General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr, AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 465, wherein it is observed that, ‘if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum’. It is further observed that, ‘the said rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices’. C) It is submitted by the learned AGP that, the learned Reference Court has rightly considered the evidence on record and no interference was called for. 4. It is needless to state that, the Award passed by the SLAO is the offer. It is for the Appellants - Claimant to establish and prove their case / claim before the learned Reference Court by leading the necessary 4 evidence. The papers shows that, in support of their claim for enhanced compensation, the Appellants relied on the sale instance below Exh.25. The observations in the Judgment by the learned Reference Court show that, the land which was the subject matter of the sale instance was at the distance of 50 meters from the acquired land. It is observed that, ‘the adjacent land of the acquired land was developed land’. By considering the said sale instance, the learned Reference Court has determined the compensation @ Rs.123/- per Sq. Meter. The learned Reference Court has rightly not considered the another sale instance which was admittedly on the stamp paper. It is clear that, on the basis of the evidence on record, the learned Reference Court had granted the enhancement in the compensation. Thus, no fault can be found with the enhancement determined by the learned Reference Court. 5. Undisputedly, Section - 4 Notification was published on 15.03.1998 and the said sale instance below Exh.25 which was considered by the learned Reference Court was dated 02.03.1996. This clearly goes to show that, the said sale instance was two years prior to Section - 4 Notification. The learned Reference Court has considered the topography of the acquired land, and observed that it was situated near the Nanded–Latur Highway and the road connecting Sonkhed to Dagadgaon and Kolheborgaon and both roads pass in close proximity to the acquired land and the land was acquired for the Sub-station. From 5 these observations, it is clear that, the acquired land was adjacent to or in the semi-urban area. Therefore, the Appellants would be entitled for 10% per annum escalation in the market rate. Considering 10% per annum escalation for two (2) years, the market rate would come to Rs.148/- per Sq. Meter. Undisputedly, there will have to be deduction towards development charges. The learned Reference Court has considered 30% deduction towards the same. The said deduction appears to be in consonance with law. Accordingly, after deducting 30% towards development charges, the compensation will have to be computed on the enhanced market rate with the consequential statutory benefits. The calculation would come as under: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Market price of the acquired land adm. 0-Hectare, 60-Ares i.e. 6000 Sq. Meters @ Rs.148/- per Square Meter Rs. 8,88,000/- Less 30% development charges Rs.2,66,400/- Total Compensation Rs.6,21,600/- Less compensation received by the Appellant Rs.2,94,000/- Enhanced Compensation Rs.5,92,200/- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. The operative order of the impugned Judgment and Award shows that, the interest is granted from the date of Notification which is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in The State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (4) ALL MR 513 and therefore, the appropriate modification to that effect is required in the Award. 6 7. In view of the above discussion, the following order is passed. ORDER A) The First Appeal is partly allowed. B) The Appellants – Claimants would be entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.5,92,200/- (Rs. Five Lakh Ninety Two Thousand Two Hundred) with the statutory benefits. C) The interest shall be calculated from the date of the Award as per the Judgment in The State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (4) ALL MR 513. D) The Appellants shall pay the deficit court fees. E) The Appellants shall not be entitled for the interest for the delayed period, if any. F) Record and Proceedings be sent back to the learned Reference Court. ( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. ) GGP