1-FA-1000-2007.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 1 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1000 OF 2007 M.S.S.T. Mahamandal, Mumbai Through Controller, S.T. Mahamanda, Jalgaon VERSUS Ashok Dagadu Mahajan And Another WITH X-OBJECTION NO. 279 OF 2026 IN FA/1000/2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10275 OF 2026 IN X-OBJ/279/2026 Ashok Dagadu Mahajan VERSUS M.S.S.T. Mahamandal, Mumbai And Another …… 76 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2990 OF 2008 M.S.R.T.C. Mumbai, Through Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Jalgaon VERSUS Special Land Acquisition Opfficer, No.1 and Others WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5205 OF 2026 IN FA/2990/2008 Rajaram Sayaji Mahajan (Died) Through L.Rs. Dwarkabai (Died) Through L.Rs.Devidas And Others VERSUS Special Land Acquisition Officer -1 Jalgoan And Others WITH X-OBJECTION NO. 86 OF 2024 IN FA/2990/2008 Rajaram Sayaji Mahajan (Died) Through L.Rs. Dwarkabai (Died) Through L.Rs.Devidas And Others VERSUS Special Land Acquisition Officer -1 Jalgoan And Others AND 2026:BHC-AUG:46503 1-FA-1000-2007.odt 2 77 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1721 OF 2008 M.S.R.T.C. Mumbai, Through Divisional Controller, MSRTC, Jalgaon VERSUS Special Land Acquisition Officer, No.1 and Others WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5221 OF 2026 IN FA/1721/2008 Rajaram Sayaji Mahajan (Died) Through L.Rs. Dwarkabai (Died) Through L.Rs.Devidas And Others VERSUS Special Land Acquisition Officer -1 Jalgoan And Others WITH X-OBJECTION NO. 87 OF 2024 IN FA/1721/2008 Rajaram Sayaji Mahajan (Died) Through L.Rs. Dwarkabai (Died) Through L.Rs.Devidas And Others VERSUS Special Land Acquisition Officer -1 Jalgoan And Others …… Mr. A.B. Dhongade, Advocate for Appellant - MSRTC in all FAs Mr. Vijay Patil, Advocate for for Claimant in Fa/1007/2007 and X-Obj/279/2026 Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate for Claimants in X-Obj/86/2024, X-Obj/87/2024, FA/2990/2008, and FA/1721/2008 Mr. S.S. Dande, Mr. A.M. Phule, and Mr. A.D. Wange, AGPs for State in respective matters …… CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 28 SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : ORDER IN CA/10275 OF 2026 : 1. The present Civil Application is filed for bringing the legal representatives of deceased Ashok Dagadu Mahajan on record, as stated in paragraph No.5 of the application, by condoning the delay of 3375 days and for setting aside the abatement, if any. 1-FA-1000-2007.odt 3 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the Civil Application deserves to be allowed. The same is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clauses (B) to (E). Amendment to be carried out forthwith. ORDER IN FIRST APPEALS AND CROSS-OBJECTIONS: 3. Heard learned counsel Mr. A.B. Dhongade for the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC)/Acquiring Body, learned counsel Mr. A.B. Kale and Mr. Vijay B. Patil for the respective claimants and learned AGPs Mr. S.S. Dande, Mr. A.M. Phule and Mr. A.D. Wange for the State. 4. These First Appeals and Cross-Objections arise out of the Judgments and Awards dated 26.02.2007 and 06.12.2007 passed by the learned Reference Court at Jalgaon in the Land Acquisition References mentioned below. Since the matters arise out of acquisition undertaken for the same project, namely, construction of S.T. Stand and residential quarters at Erandol, and involve a common issue regarding determination of market value, they are being considered together. The relevant particulars are as under: Sr. No. FA No. X-Obj. No. / Stamp No. LAR No. Gat No. Land acquired Date of Judgment & Award 1 1000/2007 279 of 2022 1936 of 2005 1007, 1008 11 R; 15R 26.02.2007 2 2990/2008 86 of 2024 971 of 2005 1011 29 R 06.12.2007 3 1721/2008 87 of 2024 970 of 2005 1010 P, 1011 P, 1012 23 R; 1 H 69 R 11 R 06.12.2007 1-FA-1000-2007.odt 4 5. In LAR No.1936 of 2005, the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act") was published on 09.12.1982. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short, "the SLAO") thereafter passed the Award under Section 11 of the Act on 12.09.1986 and determined the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.55/- per square metre. 6. In LAR Nos.970 and 971 of 2005, the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 23.03.1980. The SLAO passed the Award under Section 11 of the Act on 12.09.1986. In LAR No.970 of 2005, the market value was determined at Rs.1,310/- per R treating the land as agricultural land, whereas in LAR No.971 of 2005, the market value was determined at Rs.5,500/- per R treating the land as non-agricultural land. 7. The claimants, being dissatisfied with the market value determined by the SLAO, accepted the compensation under protest and sought references under Section 18 of the Act. 8. Upon consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation. In LAR No.1936 of 2005, the learned Reference Court observed that the claimants would be entitled to the rate of Rs.20/- per square foot, but since the claim was restricted, compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.8/- per square foot. 1-FA-1000-2007.odt 5 9. In LAR Nos.970 and 971 of 2005, the learned Reference Court relied upon the sale instances at Exhibits 49, 115 and 51, after applying deduction of 25%, determined the market value at the rate of Rs.115/- per square metre in LAR No.970 of 2005 and Rs.175/- per square metre in LAR No.971 of 2005, along with consequential statutory benefits. 10. Being dissatisfied with the enhancement granted by the learned Reference Court, the Acquiring Body has filed the First Appeals. The claimants have filed Cross-Objections seeking further enhancement. 11. Learned counsel for the Acquiring Body submits that the learned Reference Court ought to have applied a deduction of 65%, as the acquired lands were agricultural lands acquired for construction of the bus stand and residential quarters. He submits that the sale instances relied upon by the claimants relate to small parcels of land situated in the city of Erandol and, therefore, cannot be directly compared with the acquired lands, which, according to him, were situated outside the city. He further submits that the Reference Court ought to have applied a higher deduction while determining the market value. 12. As regards the Cross-Objections, learned counsel for the Acquiring Body submits that there is considerable delay in filing the same and that the compensation awarded by the SLAO was just and proper. He, therefore, submits that the First Appeals be allowed and the Cross-Objections be dismissed. 1-FA-1000-2007.odt 6 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submit that the acquisition was undertaken for construction of the S.T. Stand as well as residential quarters for its workers and servants. They submit that though the acquisitions were covered by different notifications, they formed part of the same project. It is submitted that the area adjoining the acquired lands was already developed and had non-agricultural potentiality and, therefore, the acquired lands were adjacent to the city and cannot be treated as land situated in an isolated or remote location. 14. Learned counsel for the claimants further submit that the sale instances at Exhibits 49, 51 and 115 demonstrate the prevailing market value and that the learned Reference Court ought not to have applied such deduction as against the claimants. It is also submitted that, having regard to the fact that the lands were acquired for the same project, there is no justification for maintaining three different rates merely because two notifications were issued. 15. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and, with their able assistance, have gone through the impugned Judgments and Awards and the record and proceedings. 16. It is not in dispute that the lands in question were acquired for the same project at Erandol, namely, construction of the S.T. Stand and 1-FA-1000-2007.odt 7 residential quarters. It is also not in dispute that there were two notifications under Section 4 of the Act, dated 31.03.1980 and 09.12.1982. 17. In LAR No.971 of 2005, the learned Reference Court relied upon the sale instance at Exhibit 51 dated 30.12.1981. The said sale relates to City Survey No.2262 at Erandol, wherein an area of 45.01 square metres was sold for Rs.9,500/-. After considering the said sale instance and by applying 25% deduction, the learned Reference Court determined the market value at Rs.175/- per square metre. 18. In LAR No.970 of 2005, the learned Reference Court relied upon the sale instance at Exhibit 115 and determined the market value at Rs.115/- per square metre after applying 25% deduction. 19. In LAR No.1936 of 2005, the learned Reference Court considered the material on record and observed that the claimants would be entitled to Rs.20/- per square foot, but restricted the award to Rs.8/- per square foot in view of the claim made before the Reference Court. 20. The principal question, therefore, is whether the market value determined in the three references can be maintained at three different rates, when the acquisitions form part of the same project and the claimants rely upon the same set of sale instances for determination of market value. 1-FA-1000-2007.odt 8 21. The contention of the Acquiring Body that a deduction of 65% ought to have been applied is not found acceptable. The learned Reference Court has already considered the nature and location of the acquired lands and has applied a deduction of 25% while relying upon the sale instances. No sufficient basis is made out from the material referred to in the impugned Awards to warrant a further deduction of 65%. 22. It is also relevant that the learned Reference Court, while dealing with LAR No.971 of 2005, accepted Exhibit 51 as a relevant sale instance and determined the market value at Rs.175/- per square metre. The acquisition in the other references is also for the same project. The material placed before this Court does not justify maintaining a substantially different rate in the connected references merely on account of the different notifications. 23. As regards LAR No.1936 of 2005, the learned Reference Court itself recorded that the claimants were entitled to the rate of Rs.20/- per square foot, but awarded Rs.8/- per square foot as the claim was restricted. Thus, the enhancement to Rs.175/- per square metre is in consonance with the rate of Rs.20/- per square foot assessed by the learned Reference Court 24. In the facts and circumstances of the present matters, I find that the market value of the acquired lands in LAR Nos.1936 and 970 of 2005 also deserves to be determined at the rate of Rs.175/- per square metre, so as to bring the compensation in the connected references on the same footing. 1-FA-1000-2007.odt 9 25. Consequently, the First Appeals filed by the Acquiring Body do not call for interference. The Cross-Objections filed by the claimants in First Appeal Nos.1000 of 2007 and 1721 of 2008 deserve to be allowed to the aforesaid extent, whereas Cross-Objection No.86 of 2024 does not survive for consideration. Hence, the following order: O R D E R (i) First Appeal Nos.1000 of 2007, 2990 of 2008 and 1721 of 2008 are dismissed. (ii) Cross-Objection No.86 of 2024 is dismissed. (iii) The Cross-Objections filed by the claimants in First Appeal Nos.1000 of 2007 and 1721 of 2008 are partly allowed. (iv) The Judgment and Award dated 26.02.2007 passed in LAR No.1936 of 2005 and the Judgment and Award dated 06.12.2007 passed in LAR No.970 of 2005 are modified to the extent that the claimants therein shall be entitled to compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.175/- per square metre. (v) The Judgment and Award dated 06.12.2007 passed in LAR No.971 of 2005 shall stand confirmed to the extent it grants compensation at the rate of Rs.175/- per square metre. (vi) The claimants shall be entitled to consequential statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 1-FA-1000-2007.odt 10 (vii) The claimants shall be entitled to interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Act in accordance with law, including the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari, 2016 (3) 457. (viii) The amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be duly adjusted. (ix) The appellant-claimants shall pay the deficit court fee on the enhanced compensation, if any. (x) The claimants shall not be entitled to statutory benefits and interest for the period of delay, if any, in accordance with law. (xi) Except to the aforesaid extent, the remaining part of the Judgments and Awards passed by the learned Reference Court shall remain unaltered. (xii) The claimants shall be entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the Acquiring Body, together with accrued interest thereon, if not already withdrawn. (xiii) Bank Guarantee or solvent security, if any, stands discharged. (xiv) The modified Awards shall be drawn accordingly. (xv) Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE S P Rane