High Court Modifies Compensation in Land Acquisition Appeals for Village Tank No.2 -- Notification Date Corrected and Land Classification Reassessed Under Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Sub Category: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD
  • 35
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The High Court addressed multiple First Appeals against a Reference Court's compensation award for lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court corrected the notification date to 11.07.2005, reassessed land classifications from irrigated to dry due to lack of evidence, and evaluated sale instances to determine fair compensation rates. It found Exhibit-22 suitable and modified the rates accordingly, disposing of the appeals with instructions for compensation recalculation.

Headnote

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, heard multiple First Appeals challenging a common judgment and award dated 02.05.2015 by the Reference Court -- The appeals concerned compensation for lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for Village Tank No.2 -- The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) had a last publication date of 11.07.2005, which the Court held should be treated as the date of notification, correcting the Reference Court's error in using 13.01.2005 -- The Court reassessed the land classification, finding insufficient evidence to support the Reference Court's treatment of certain lands as irrigated -- Sale instances were evaluated, with Exhibit-22 deemed suitable for determining compensation rates -- The Court modified the compensation rates, setting a uniform rate for all lands based on the corrected assessment -- The appeals were disposed of with directions for recalculation of compensation

Issue of Consideration: The Issue of whether the compensation awarded by the Reference Court was adequate and whether the lands were correctly classified as irrigated or dry

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the appeals in part, corrected the notification date to 11.07.2005, reassessed land classifications, and modified compensation rates based on Exhibit-22, directing recalculation of compensation

2026 LawText (BOM) (02) 73

First Appeal No. 571 of 2023, First Appeal No. 572 of 2023, First Appeal No. 1774 of 2023, First Appeal No. 1775 of 2023, First Appeal No. 3104 of 2023

2026-02-13

Shailesh P. Brahme, J.

2026:BHC-AUG:6526

Mr. Shubham D. Jaybhar h/f. Mr. Dattatraya Jayabhar for Appellants, Mr. S. N. Morampalle, Mr. N. D. Raje, Mr. S. V. Hange for Respondent-State, Mr. Hemant V. Dhage for Acquiring body in FA/571/2023, FA/572/2023, FA/1774/2023, FA/1775/2023, Mr. Rahul A. Tambe for Acquiring body in FA/3104/2023

Subhadrabai w/o Dhondiram Rathod (deceased through LRs: Baliram Dhondiram Rathod, Rajaram Dhondiram Rathod, Muktabai Bansi Rathod, Shankutala Ramesh Chavan), Ankush s/o Phula Rathod, Lahu s/o Phula Rathod, Bhagwat s/o Dattuba Sagare, Udhav s/o Tulshiram Kakade, Neela s/o Chapla Rathod (deceased through LRs: Vimalbai w/o Neela Rathod, Sunil s/o Neela Rathod)

The State of Maharashtra Through the Collector, Beed District Beed, The Executive Engineer, Beed Irrigation Division, Beed, Tq. and Dist. Beed

Nature of Litigation: Appeals against a common judgment and award by the Reference Court regarding compensation for lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

Remedy Sought

The appellants sought enhanced compensation, arguing that the Reference Court awarded inadequate rates and incorrectly classified lands

Filing Reason

Dissatisfaction with the compensation awarded by the Reference Court and errors in land classification and notification date

Previous Decisions

The Reference Court awarded compensation at Rs.2500/- per Are for irrigated lands and Rs.2000/- per Are for non-irrigated lands, based on previous judgments

Issues

Whether the compensation awarded by the Reference Court was adequate Whether the lands were correctly classified as irrigated or dry Whether the notification date was correctly determined

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that all lands were irrigated and sale instances like Exhibit-22 should be considered, with the notification date being 11.07.2005 -- Respondents contended that sale instances were rightly discarded and the Reference Court's decision should not be interfered with, citing delays in filing references

Ratio Decidendi

The date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is the last date of publication -- Classification of lands as irrigated requires cogent evidence, and mere existence of a well is insufficient -- Sale instances must be compatible and from similar areas to determine fair compensation rates

Judgment Excerpts

The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in Government Gazette on 13.01.2005 and the last date of publication is 11.07.2005 under Section 4(1) of the Act. It shall be treated as the date of notification -- I find that there is no cogent material on record for treating the lands in First Appeal Nos.571 of 2023, 572 of 2023 and 3104 of 2023 as irrigated lands -- The sale instance at Exhibit-22 dated 24.04.2005 for 77 R of land from Gat No.353 of village Pachegaon appears to be more suitable

Procedural History

Lands were acquired pursuant to a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with last publication date 11.07.2005 -- The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs.690/- per Are -- The Reference Court modified rates to Rs.2500/- per Are for irrigated lands and Rs.2000/- per Are for non-irrigated lands -- Appeals were filed in the High Court, which heard arguments and reserved judgment on 10.02.2026, pronounced on 13.02.2026

Related Judgement
High Court High Court Modifies Compensation in Land Acquisition Appeals for Village Tank No...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court Directs State to Expedite Scrutiny and Reimbursement of Fees Under Ri...