1 FA 1285.2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO.1285 OF 2024 1) Smt. Shakuntala w/o Devisahay Agrawal, Aged about 65 years, Occupation-Agriculturist, R/o. Nannumal Building, Bajeria, Nagpur. * Intervenors i.e. Appellant No.2 & 3 is added. 2) Smt. Nanda w/o Ganesh Bodkhe, Aged about 64 years, Occupation-Agriculturist, R/o.3, New Sneha Nagar, Wardha Road, Nagpur. 3) Smt. Vaishali w/o Prakash Bhoyar, Aged about 43 years, Occupation-Agriculturist, R/o. Plot No.98, Pipla, Hudkeshwar Road, Nagpur. .. Appellants .. Versus .. 1) The Executive Engineer, Pench Project, Pipla, Nagpur. 2) Additional Land Acquisition Officer, Pench Project, Pipla, Nagpur. 3) National Highway Authority of India Through its Project Director, PIU, Nagpur having address at Bunglow No.2, Shubhankar Apartments, Amended as per order dated 21.01.2026 C.F. Appellant R.J. Shinde 2026:BHC-NAG:13705 2 FA 1285.2024 Plot No.159, Ambazari Hill Top, Ram Nagar, Nagpur. .. Respondents ………. Mr. Sanjay B. Mohta, Advocate for Appellant No.1. Mr. Anup S. Dhore, Advocate for Intervenors/Appellant Nos.2 and 3. None for Respondent No.1. Mr. M.A. Kadu, AGP for Respondent No.2. Mr. Saurabh A. Chaudhari, Advocate for Respondent No.3. ……….. CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. DATED : 08.10.2026. JUDGMENT 1. In the present appeal, original claimant approached before this court for enhancement of compensation which is awarded by the learned reference court by the impugned judgment and award, dated 27.03.2024 in Land Acquisition Reference No.30/2002. 2. The undisputed facts of the present appeal are as under : Appellant No.1 is the original claimant before the reference court. The Appellant Nos.2 and 3 are the persons who have intervened in the present proceeding by alleging that in view of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, they are 3 FA 1285.2024 entitled for the same compensation, in case the same is awarded in favour of Appellant No.1. Accordingly, this court has allowed their intervention by order dated 21.01.2026 and they are impleaded as Appellants along with Appellant No.1 in the present appeal. 3. Appellant No.1 was the owner and in possession of agricultural land Survey No.34/1, ad-measuring 1.16 HR, situated at Mouza Pipla, Tahsil and District-Nagpur. The said land has been acquired by the respondents for ‘Construction of Outer Ring Road’ at Mouza Pipla, by issuing the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 30.03.1999. In the said land acquisition proceeding initiated by the respondents, vide Notification dated 30.03.1999, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has offered the compensation to the Appellant No.1 at the rate of Rs.1,82,000/- per hectare. Accordingly, total compensation of Rs.3,12,457/- was awarded to appellant for his acquired land. 4. The Appellant No.1, being dissatisfied with the compensation amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition 4 FA 1285.2024 Officer, has preferred the reference before the reference court and thereby claimed the compensation at the rate of Rs.12,50,000/- per hectare. The appellant has raised various grounds and more importantly submission was that the Land Acquisition Officer did not consider the quality of the land, his location as well as the potentiality of the land and thereby he has been awarded the meager amount of compensation. He has therefore claimed the enhancement in the compensation. 5. The learned Reference Court by considering the submission of rival parties as well as the evidence led by the appellant before the Reference Court, has awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.2,45,901/- per hectare for the acquired land ad-measuring 1.16 HR of Survey No.34/1 situated at Mouza Pipla, Tahsil and District-Nagpur along with statutory benefits. 6. The Appellant, who was claiming the compensation at the rate of Rs.12,50,000/- per hectare before the Reference Court was not again satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Reference Court and, therefore, preferred the present 5 FA 1285.2024 appeal before this court. 7. During the course of hearing, the Appellant has pointed out from the original award Exh.40 dated 30.09.2000 and more particularly under the title of valuation of property, wherein the Special Land Acquisition Officer has considered the awards of various agricultural land of the vicinity, has referred the transactions dated 04.03.1997 of land of same village i.e. Pipla at the rate of Rs.2,45,901/-. According to him, the learned Reference Court only by considering this transaction has awarded the compensation by the impugned judgment. However, while determining the amount of agricultural land at the rate of Rs.2,45,901/- his submission is that the learned reference court failed to consider the fact that as per the settled position of law, the claimants are entitled for annual increase of 10% from the date of sale deed till the date of Notification. However, the said benefit has not been awarded in the impugned order and hence seeks indulgence of this court to consider this aspect and enhance the compensation. 6 FA 1285.2024 8. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents- acquiring body, considering it as a matter of fact and the document which is relied upon by the Appellant is the exhibited document before the Reference Court, did not dispute this factual position. However, his submission is that for getting the increase of 10% per year, it was necessary for the Appellant to establish his case before the Tribunal. The appellant failed to establish his case before the Tribunal and, therefore, in appeal this relief cannot be granted in his favour. 9. In the present case, admittedly from Exh.40, it is clear that the transaction is of dated 04.03.1997 of village Pipla, for a consideration of Rs.2,45,901/-. Therefore, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Haryana .vs. Gurbax Singh, reported in (2008) 11 SCC 65, that in such cases, the claimants are entitled for an increase of 12% if the same is not considered by the Land Acquisition Officer. 10. It is further pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pehlad Ram and others .vs. Haryana Urban 7 FA 1285.2024 Development Authority and others, reported in (2014) 14 SCC 778, has considered the earlier judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and observed that in such cases the claimants are entitled cumulative increase of 10 to 15% per year. The specific observations in this regard are made in Para 17 of the judgment which reads as under : 17. It is also evident from the law referred to hereinabove that a cumulative increase of 10 to 15% per year in the market value of the land may be accepted unless the State agencies or acquiring authority prove otherwise.” 11. In the present case, considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and which was considered by this court in various judgments as well as by this Court in First Appeal No.46/2011 decided on 09.12.2025 (Uddhav Zapru Bhivgade and others .vs. State of Maharashtra and others), in my considered opinion, the appellants herein are entitled for 10% increase to the compensation amount awarded by the reference court from period 04.03.1997 to 30.03.1999. The rest of the grounds which the appellant has raised in the present appeal do not found to be substantiatial in nature to be considered while deciding the present appeal. 8 FA 1285.2024 12. Therefore, considering the above said factual as well as legal position, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur dated 27.03.2024 in L.A.R. No.30/2002 is modified to the extent that considering 10% interest on the amount of Rs.2,45,901/- per hectare, the same shall be considered as Rs.2,97,540/-. Accordingly, the judgment and order needs modification to that extent. Accordingly, following order is passed : O R D E R (i) Impugned judgment and award dated 27.03.2004 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur in L.A.R. No.30/2002 to the extent that the Appellant No.1 is entitled at the rate of Rs.2,97,540/- per hectare for her acquired land with all statutory benefits. The rest of the order is maintained. (ii) The appellant nos.2 and 3, who are claiming the benefits under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, can file appropriate proceeding in the light of the observations made by this court. (iii) The appeal stands disposed of in above terms. (Pravin S. Patil, J.) Gulande Signed by: A.S. GULANDE Designation: Senior Pvt. Secretary Date: 13/10/2026 09:52:33