First Appeal No.4175 of 2023.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.4175 OF 2023 Shanta Premkumarji Loya, Age- 45 yrs, Occ: Agri and Household, R/o. Prekishor & Compnay, Mondha, Selu, Tq. Selu, Dist. Parbhani ..Appellant Vs. 1] The State of Maharashtra, Through The District Collector, Osmanabad. 2] The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nanded P-T. M.I.W.-2, Nanded, Dist. Nanded 3] The Commissioner, Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corporation, Nanded. ..Respondents ---- Mr.Pravin B. Rakhunde, Advocate for appellant Mr.S.N.Kendre, AGPfor respondent nos.1 and 2 Mr.Suhas P. Urgunde, Advocate for respondent no.3 ---- CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. RESERVED ON : SEPTEMBER 01, 2026 PRONOUNCED ON : SEPTEMBER 07, 2026 ORDER :- Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 30.06.2023 passed by learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded, in Land Acquisition Reference No.135 of 2011, the claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement. 2026:BHC-AUG:41280 2 First Appeal No.4175 of 2023 2. Appellant’s land admeasuring 2R situated at survey no.2/2 at Mouje Elichpur, Dist. Nanded was acquired by the respondent nos.2 and 3 for JNNURNS Treatment scheme. After completion of the entire procedure, the compensation for the land acquisition was declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The compensation was granted to the appellant at the rate of Rs.3,60,000/- per hectare. Being dissatisfied thereby the appellant filed the land acquisition reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The appellant claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per R. In support of the claim, two sale instances were produced on record. It was contended that the sale instances were much prior to the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. 3. The trial court heard the parties, scrutinised the evidence and arrived at the conclusion to hold the valuation of the land at the rate of Rs.2,25,000/- per R. However, by causing deduction at the rate of 70% towards development charges and allied expenses the enhancement was granted at the rate of Rs.67,500/- per R. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the claimant is before this court. 3 First Appeal No.4175 of 2023 4. Mr.Rakhunde, learned Advocate for the appellant, submits that the present appeal being prosecuted is on incorrect valuation of the appellant’s land, as also on the objection raised in respect of the deductions. 5. Considering the short issue involved, the appeal is taken up for final disposal at admission stage by consent of the parties. 6. Mr.Rakhunde, learned advocate for the appellant submits that although the deductions towards development and ancillary charges are permissible, however the quantum of deductions is grossly excessive and unjustifiable. He would submit that the land valuation also needs to be on higher side. 7. Mr.Urgunde, learned advocate for the respondent - acquiring body would however object such contention. He would submit that it is a practice under law that the deductions ought to be made towards development charges and ancillary expenses. Thus, he would justify the deductions. 8. Considered the submissions advanced by learned advocate for the parties. As far as the valuation is concerned, I have gone through the findings rendered by the reference court. I do not find any infirmity therein. However, I find an issue before me is for 4 First Appeal No.4175 of 2023 consideration in this appeal as regards to deduction. The valuation for the purpose of carving out the compensation is not much in dispute. The only issue is of quantum of deduction towards development charges. The argument advanced by learned advocate for the appellant finds me convincing that considering the area of acquisition, i.e. 2 R which is admittedly located on a developed road, deduction at the rate of 70% is grossly excessive. 9. On a query, Mr.Urgunde, learned advocate for the respondent – acquiring body fairly accepts that there are no parameters for fixing the quantum of deductions. On the other hand, the law laid down by several judgments of this courts is that it is the discretion of the reference court to fix the deduction value. It is expected that the reference court applies its mind judiciously and considering several aspects for the purpose of deductions towards development charges. 10. In my considered view, the purpose of acquisition of land, the location, area, quality and character of the acquired land, etc. are the predominant components which govern the value of deduction towards development charges. 11. In the case in hand, it is a matter of fact that the acquired land is only 2 R. The same is situated on a developed road 5 First Appeal No.4175 of 2023 itself. Obviously, it is not for any agricultural use. The purpose of land acquisition is to settle a housing project under JNNURNS scheme. Obviously, by no stretch of imagination it could be accepted that the development charges would be at the rate of 70% of valuation of land. In view of this, in my considered view, the deduction towards development charges need to be reduced to an adequate figure. Considering the components as expressed above, I deem it appropriate to hold the appropriate and proper rate of deduction would be 35% instead of 70% as is held by the reference court. 12. In view of the above, in my opinion, the appellant deserves enhancement in the compensation by reducing the quantum of development charges from 70% to 35%. As such, the award needs to be modified to that extent. Hence, I pass the following order :- O R D E R (i) The First Appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and award is modified to the extent of Clause 2 of operative order granting compensation at the rate of Rs.1,46,250/- per R instead of Rs.67,500/- per R. 6 First Appeal No.4175 of 2023 (iii) Rest of the terms of the impugned award to stand unaltered. (iv) Interest part shall be governed by the principles laid down by full bench judgment of this court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016(4) All MR 513. (v) The acquiring body shall deposit the amount of enhanced compensation together with accrued interest in this court within a period of six months from today. Upon such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw such amount without making any separate Civil Application (vi) The appellants shall pay the deficit court fees, if any. [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.] ……….. KBP