1 FA 147.23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO.147 OF 2023 Smt. Kusumbai Manohar Kannawar, Age 56 years, Occupation-Cultivator, R/o. Mandwa, Tq. Digras, District-Yavatmal. .. Appellant .. Versus .. 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector, Yavatmal. 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Road Project, Zillha Parishad, Yavatmal, Dist. Yavatmal. 3. The Executive Engineer, Building & Construction Department, Pusad, Tq. Pusad, Dist. Yavatmal. .. Respondents ………. Mr. G.R. Kothari, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. S.C. Joshi, AGP for the Respondents. ………. CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. DATED : 27.08.2026. JUDGMENT 1. In the present appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment and award dated 07.12.2021 passed in Land Acquisition No.796/2004 to the extent of deduction of 35% 2026:BHC-NAG:11303 2 FA 147.23 acquired area for the purpose of public utility which according to appellant is contrary to the settled position of law and seeks indulgence of this court in the matter. 2. In the present matter, it is undisputed fact that the present appellant is the owner of land Gat No.81, ad-measuring 0.43 R. The said land was acquired by the respondents for the purpose of construction of approach road for Digras-Darwha State Highway. For that purpose, the Notice under Section 4 was published on 24.08.1989 in Government Gazette and in pursuance of the said land acquisition proceeding, final award was delivered on 15.06.1992. By the said award, the compensation at the rate of Rs.18,600/- per hectare was awarded to the appellant by the acquiring body. The appellant, being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, preferred the Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. It is pointed out before the Reference Court that the appellant has entered into the witness box and established the case that she is entitled for the enhancement of the 3 FA 147.23 compensation. According to her, no one has entered into the witness box on behalf of the respondents nor any evidence was brought on record that any percentage of land is required for the purpose of public utility. In the background of this factual position, the learned Reference Court by the impugned judgment has enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.12/- per sq.ft. for the acquired land. However, while granting this enhancement in the compensation, the learned Reference Court has held that 35% acquired area has to be deducted from the total acquired land portion for the purpose of public utility. This observation of the learned Reference Court is under challenge in the present appeal. 4. The first contention of the present appellant is that there was no evidence available on record to demonstrate that 35% acquired land is required for the purpose of the public utility. No one entered into the witness box on behalf of the acquiring body to state that what public utility is required on the acquired land, particularly when the same was acquired for the construction of approach road for Digras-Darwha State Highway. 4 FA 147.23 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has also pointed out that this court in identical cases wherein the land was acquired for the construction of approach road of the same village has held that the deduction of the land is not permissible as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Accordingly, by relying upon the said judgment, it is the submission of the appellant that the deduction which is done in the present matter is also without any basis and the principles laid down by this court in identical case is required to be made applicable in the matter. 6. The appellant has specifically relied upon the judgment delivered by this court in First Appeal No.143/2023 decided on 09.10.2025 and placed reliance on Para 2 of the said judgment which reads thus : 2. It is common ground that the land was acquired for the purpose of construction of State Highway/diversion road. The facts of the present case are somewhat similar to the case of C.R. Nagaraja Shetty Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Estate Officer and another wherein, the Supreme Court has observed that as the acquisition was only for widening of the National Highway, there is no question of any additional development and therefore, the deduction on that count was not necessary. This Court in the decision of Madhukar 5 FA 147.23 S/o Manohar Kannawar Vs. State of Maharashtra arising out of a similar award under the same Notification has observed that the deduction towards development of the land acquired is unwarranted. Reference can also be made to the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Cross-Objection No.32/2012 decided on 20.06.2019.” 7. The learned AGP for the respondents-acquiring body has strongly opposed the present application. He has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ravinder Kumar Goel .vs. State of Haryana and others, reported in 2023 (2) Scale 824. According to him, the deduction is permissible because while acquiring the land for express way, it was necessary to provide several amenities through the highway and also creation of service roads, flyovers, underpass to townships across such highway. Hence, considering this position of law, the findings recorded by the learned Reference Court are correct in the matter. 8. In the present matter, as stated above, the respondents are correct to state that the deduction can be done towards the development charges but for that purpose they have to demonstrate and establish that what facilities are going to be made available on the approach way for which the land is 6 FA 147.23 acquired. Admittedly, there is no evidence available on record to substantiate this fact on record. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the view taken by this court in First Appeal No.143/2023 decided on 09.10.2025 is applicable in the matter. Accordingly, the following order is passed : O R D E R (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned District Judge-1, Darwha dated 07.12.2021 in Land Acquisition Case No.796/2004 is hereby modified to the extent that the exclusion of 35% acquired area deducted from the total acquired land is hereby quashed and set aside. (iii) It is made clear that the appellant will be entitled for the compensation at the rate of Rs.12/- per sq.ft. to the total area 0.43 R which is acquired for the construction of approach way. (iv) The rest of the impugned judgment and decree passed by Reference Court dated 07.12.2021 is hereby confirmed. 7 FA 147.23 (v) The respondents are directed to deposit the amount in terms of the order of this court within a period of 45 days before this court. (vi) After deposit of the said amount, the appellant would be entitled to withdraw the same, subject to satisfaction of Registrar (Judicial). No order as to costs. (Pravin S. Patil, J.) Gulande Signed by: A.S. GULANDE Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 29/08/2026 13:10:46