Bombay High Court
Surekha Suryakantrao Biradar vs State Of Maha And Ors on 6 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:921
926 FA NO. 466 OF 2004 +.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 466 OF 2004
Surekha Suryakantrao Biradar
Age: 43 years, Occu: Legal practitioner
R/o Ambekar Nagar, Nanded 431 601 ...Appellant
(Orig. Claimant)
VERSUS
1. The State Of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Nanded
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Upper Pen Ganga Project No. I, Nanded
Collectorate Building, Nanded
3. Swani Ramanand Teerth
Marathwada University Nanded
Through its Authorized person
Office at Vishnupuri, Tq & Dist. Nanded ...Respondents
(Orig. Respondents)
...
Ms. Ranjana D. Reddy, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. S. B. Jadhav, AGP for Respondents/State
Mr. Sanket S. Shinde, Advocate for respondent No.3
CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 06.01.2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard the learned advocate for the applicant, the learned AGP for the State and learned advocate for respondent No.3 at length.
2. This appeal is preferred against the common judgment and award dated 29.08.2003 passed by the learned Land Reference Court, Nanded in Land Acquisition Reference No.371 of 1 of 6 (( 2 )) 926 FA NO. 466 OF 2004 + 1993 and 372 of 1993 by which the claimant's claim for the enhancement of compensation was dismissed.
3. Learned advocate for the applicant pointed out the impugned judgment and award, the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record. She Submitted that the plots bearing Nos.154, 155 and 156 out of survey No.31, Block No.36 situated at village Vishnupuri, Tahsil and District Nanded were owned by the claimant and those were acquired by respondent No.2-the Acquiring Body for the benefit and use of respondent No.3-the University. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 06.07.1989. The Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 16.02.1992 and awarded compensation at the rate of 4.05 Rupees per sq. ft to the claimant for her acquired plots. Thereafter, the appellant / claimant preferred a Reference seeking enhanced amount of compensation. However, the learned Reference Court dismissed the claim of the claimant. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and award enhancement of compensation is sought.
4. Learned Advocate for the appellant further pointed out the impugned judgment, wherein the learned Reference Court held that 2 of 6 (( 3 )) 926 FA NO. 466 OF 2004 + the layout map was not produced on record and therefore, disbelieved the sale instances. She submitted that there are other claimants, whose lands were acquired from the same vicinity, however, the learned Reference Court while passing the impugned judgment failed to consider those judgments wherein same sale exemplars were considered. However, the claim of the present claimant was dismissed only on the ground that the layout map was not filed on record. She further submitted that lands possessing similar potentiality ought to have been treated similarly. However, the learned Reference Court erred in deciding the claim of the claimant and arrived at an erroneous conclusion. She submitted that the reasons and findings of the learned Reference Court are neither legal nor correct and prayed to allow the claim of the claimant on the ground of parity by enhancing compensation @ Rs.7/- per sq. ft. as the acquired land of the appellant is developed non-agricultural plots.
5. Learned AGP for the State and learned Advocate for Respondent No.3 strongly opposed the appeal and submitted that no layout map has been filed on record to show that the acquired plots were developed. Therefore, there are no sufficient grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. It is further 3 of 6 (( 4 )) 926 FA NO. 466 OF 2004 + submitted that the claimant failed to prove that those plots are similarly situated. They submitted that in paragraph No.13 of the impugned judgment, the learned Reference Court has given cogent and acceptable reasons and rightly concluded that the claimant failed to prove her claim in its proper perspective. They further submitted that the learned Reference Court was correct in passing the impugned judgment and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
6. Perused the Record and Proceedings, particularly the evidence and impugned judgment. The claimant has adduced both oral as well as documentary evidence of the sale exemplar. It is an admitted fact that the sale exemplars relied upon by the claimant were considered by the Learned Reference Court in its earlier decisions in L.A.R. No.206 of 1993 and L.A.R. No.214 of 1993. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it is crystal clear that the learned Reference Court considered the sale exemplars of Plot Nos.121 and
130.
7. The layout map produced before this Court shows that the acquired plots in the present case are having a wider road than the road attached to plot Nos.121 and 130. If for similarly situated plots compensation @ Rs.7/- per sq. ft. is awarded, then the claimant in 4 of 6 (( 5 )) 926 FA NO. 466 OF 2004 + the present case is also entitled to the same rate of compensation on the principle of parity. It is a matter of judicial discipline to award the compensation as per the compensation granted in land reference cases arising out of one and same nature of acquisition. The learned Reference Court has awarded compensation @ Rs.7/- per sq. ft by determining the market price of the similar acquired plots. Therefore, the claimant is certainly entitled to the same rate of compensation for her three acquired plots. The learned Reference Court ought to have considered this aspect in its proper perspective, however, it wrongly dismissed the claim of the claimant without recording cogent and acceptable reasons. The sale exemplars were discarded only on the ground that the acquired plots of the claimant did not abutt a road and layout map was not filed on record. Even if the claimant was unable to produce such evidence of layout, the Court could have taken recourse to the provisions of Section 30 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and called for the necessary documentary evidence, as held by this Court in First Appeal No. 9 of 2013 and other connected appeals decided on 03.12.2025 Digambar Hanumant Balwad Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others.
8. Considering all above aspects, interference is certainly warranted in the impugned judgment and award. The appeal 5 of 6 (( 6 )) 926 FA NO. 466 OF 2004 + deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment and award deserves to be set aside. Hence, the following order:
::ORDER::
I. The First Appeal is allowed. II. The judgment and award passed in L.A.R. No.371 of 1993 is set aside and modified as under: (a) The claimant is entitled to an enhanced amount of
compensation @ Rs.7/- per sq. ft. for her acquired plots along with all statutory benefits like interest, component and solatium etc., as per the Provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. III. It is clarified that the appellant / claimant is not entitled to the interest for the period of delay, if any is condoned by this Court. IV. The respondent-Acquiring Body is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation along with all statutory benefits like interest, component and solatium etc., within 12 weeks. On receiving the same, it be paid to the claimants.
V. Award be drawn up accordingly.
VI. Pending civil applications, if any, stand disposed of.
VII. Record and Proceedings be sent back.
[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]
HRJadhav
6 of 6