Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... vs Raja Zuga Joshi Since Deceased Thr Lr ... on 17 April, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:19090
KVM
1/55
FA 714 OF 2018.doc
Digitally signed
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
by KANCHAN
KANCHAN VINOD
VINOD MAYEKAR
MAYEKAR Date:
2026.04.22
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
21:22:29 +0530
FIRST APPEAL NO. 714 OF 2018
ALONGWITH
CROSS OBJECTION (ST) NO. 31025 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 714 OF 2018
The State of Maharashtra )
(Through The Special Land Acquisition )
Officer, Metro Center No.1, Panvel, )
Tal. Panvel, Dist. Raigad) ) ..... Appellant
(Orig. Opponents)
VERSUS
Raja Zuga Joshi )
Since deceased through Legal Heirs, )
1. Venubai Rajaram Joshi, )
Age 48 yrs., Occu. Household, )
R/at Padaghe, Tal. Panvel, )
Dist. Raigad. )
2. Rohidas Rajaram Joshi, )
Age 33 yrs., Occu. Service, )
R/at Padaghe, Tal. Panvel, )
Dist. Raigad. )
3. Uttam Rajaram Joshi, )
Age 30 yrs., Occu. Agriculture, )
R/at Padaghe, Tal. Panvel, )
Dist. Raigad. )
4. Sitarabai Sawalaram Mhatre, )
Age 36 yrs., Occu. Household, )
R/at Bamandongari, Tal. Panvel, )
Dist. Raigad. )
5. Lilabai Parshuram Tambade, )
Age 27 yrs., Occu. Household, )
::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 :::
KVM
2/55
FA 714 OF 2018.doc
R/at Dhakta Khanda, Tal. Panvel, )
Dist. Raigad. )
6. Shakuntala Ravindra Patil, )
Age 24 yrs., Occu. Household, )
R/at Dhakta Khanda, Tal. Panvel, )
Dist. Raigad. )
7. Ranjana Rajaram Joshi, )
Age 19 yrs., Occu. Household, )
R/at Padaghe, Tal. Panvel, )
Dist. Raigad. ) ..... Respondents
(Orig. Claimants)
Mr. A.R.Patil, Additional G.P. for the State/Appellant.
Adv. Shriram S. Kulkarni a/w. Adv. Sujay Palshikar, Adv. Monish K. Vig
for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3, 5 and 7.
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
RESERVED ON : 16 DECEMBER, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 17 APRIL, 2026
JUDGMENT :
This judgment has been divided into parts to facilitate analysis.
Table of Contents A. Introduction.................................................................03 B. Factual Matrix..............................................................04 C. Outline of the submissions..............................................07
1. Submissions of Claimants.......................................07
2. Submissions of Respondent - State...........................14 D. Points for Determination.................................................18 ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 3/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc
1. Legal Principles and Factors to determine compensation of acquired land.......................................................18
2. Factors to be neglected in determining compensation....26
3. The principles of Public Funds in process of acquiring land for public purposes.........................................27
4. On whom the burden of proof lies ?...........................29
5. Determination of fair market rate through comparative sales method........................................................29
6. Evidence Led........................................................34
7. Leasehold vs. Freehold...........................................37
8. Notification of the year 1970 for New Bombay Project...39
9. Notification of the year 1986 for New Bombay Project...41
10. Letter of Law & Judiciary .......................................45
11. Comparison of market rate @Rs. 20/- & 25/- ..............46
12. Illustration with 30% hike per year...........................48
13. Market Rate Comparison - 1986 Notification..............50 E. Conclusion...................................................................54 [A] Introduction:
This First Appeal has been preferred by the State of Maharashtra, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act"), challenging the judgment and award passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibaug on 31 October, 2014 thereby granting compensation to the original claimant at the rate of ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 4/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc Rs.1,500/- per sq.mtr. for acquisition of the land alongwith other statutory benefits. After the Appeal by the State was admitted, the claimants have filed their Cross Objections in the First Appeal.
[B] Factual Matrix : i) In 1970, the Government of Maharashtra acquired large
chunks of land in 96 villages of Raigad and Thane Districts for implementing 'New Bombay Project'. In the present proceedings, the land under acquisition is in Village Padghe, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad, admeasuring around 3640 sq.mtrs. A notification under Section 4 was initially issued in the year 1970, under the provisions of the Act. However, as the State did not take any steps to acquire the land within the statutory period, the acquisition lapsed.
ii) Once again, on 24 September 1986, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short 'SLAO') published a notification under Section 4 of the Act for acquiring the subject land. Thereafter on 11 September, 1989, the SLAO passed his award under Section 11 of the Act, granting total compensation of Rs.14,560/-.
iii) Being dissatisfied with the Award, the original claimant preferred Reference under Section 18 of the Act and prayed for enhancement of compensation @ Rs.5,000/- per sq.mtr. before Civil Judge Senior Division, Alibaug. In the said reference, the State ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 5/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc Government filed its Written Statement. As the matter proceeded further, the claimant no.1 - Rohidas Raja Joshi, entered the witness box and filed his affidavit in evidence. The claimant no.1 was cross examined by the advocate appearing for the State of Maharashtra.
Thereafter, the claimants examined their witness no.2, being the Valuer & Civil Engineer - Ms.Manjiri A. Joshi. Through her testimony, her Valuation Report - Exhibit '28' and the location Map - Exhibit '29' of the acquired land was brought on record. The said Valuer was cross examined by the advocate appearing for the State. After the evidence was closed on behalf of the claimant, the State did not examine any witness on their behalf. Therefore, the matter proceeded further for arguments.
iv) After the advocate for both the parties were heard, the Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division, Alibaug by his Award dated 31 October, 2014, partly allowed the Reference and granted enhanced compensation @ Rs.1,500/- per sq.mtr. for the acquired land alongwith other statutory benefits.
v) The State of Maharashtra, being dissatisfied with the enhanced compensation, filed their First Appeal in the year 2015, alongwith delay condonation application in this Court. After the delay was condoned, the First Appeal No. 714 of 2018 filed by the State was ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 6/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc admitted on 2 May, 2018. The original claimants then on 10 September 2025 filed their Cross Objections, which was numbered as Cross Objection Stamp No. 31025 of 2025.
vi) In the meanwhile, Supreme Court in the matter pertaining to the acquisition of land of Village Roadpali, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad which is adjoining to Village Padghe in reference to Section 4 notification of the year 1986, in Babibai Babu Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra in Civil Appeal No(s). 1564-1565 of 2016 on 31st October, 2017 remanded the matter alongwith group of matters, back to this Hon'ble Court to be heard afresh. Later even the other Special Leave Petitions which challenged the assessment of market value decided by this Court of land acquisition of near by villages which also pertained to Section 4 notification of the same year 1986 were also remanded back, to be reheard by this Hon'ble Court. Both the Counsel jointly submitted that after remand, none of these matters have been finally decided.
vii) As this First Appeal and Cross Objections therein were ripe for final hearing, by consent of learned advocates appearing for both sides, this matter is taken up for final hearing. ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 7/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc [C] Outline of the submissions :
I have heard learned counsel for both the sides, comprehensively. Also, with their assistance, I've gone through the documents placed on record.
1. Submissions of Claimants -
i) Mr. Shriram Kulkarni, learned advocate for the claimant opened his arguments with first referring to the judgment of State of Maharashtra vs. Ashok Wani, First Appeal No. 1119 of 1997, passed by the Division Bench of Bombay High Court. According to Mr.Kulkarni, the Additional Government Pleader agreed before the Bench of Former the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court Shri Swatanter Kumar that the rate of notification of the year 1986 should be Rs.1,725/- per sq.mtr. Since Supreme Court has remanded all the matters pertaining to notification of the year 1986 of "New Bombay Project", therefore this Court should now freshly decide the rate to be granted based on the evidence which is led before this Court, on matter to matter basis.
ii) He then referred to the affidavit of evidence of the PW No.1 - Mr.Rohidas Raju Joshi. In para no.4 of the said affidavit of evidence, the distance and vicinity of the land under acquisition has ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 8/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc been mentioned. He submitted that there is no cross on this aspect by the advocate appearing for the State. Therefore, the said fact become an admitted part of the evidence. Further in para no.7, there is mention about Taloja Industrial Estate being next to the land under acquisition at a distance of 4 k.m. from the acquired land and that the steel market is at village Kalamboli, which is very near to the acquired land. He, therefore, submitted that there is no dispute that the land in the Village Padghe, has a non agricultural NA potentiality.
iii) He thereafter referred to the affidavit of evidence of PW NO.2 - Ms.Manjiri Joshi, who is a valuer. He referred to para no.22 which mentions about two industrial estate, very near to the acquired land. He also referred to para nos.23 to 25, which was regarding comparison method of valuation based on two lease instances. As far as Weigh Bridge lease instance is concerned, the rate allotted was Rs.1,873.28 per sq.mtr. and as far as second lease instances is concerned of Shakti Constructions, the rate was Rs.2,727/- per sq.mtr.
iv) He harped that in both the instances, the land was leasehold and comparing it with the acquired land, the same was of freehold land therefore according to him, even as per the valuation report, the value of the acquired land should be much more higher.
v) He submitted that though his own valuer Ms.Joshi has ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 9/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc valued the acquired land at Rs.3,800/-, according to him, the correct valuation of the acquired land should be atleast Rs.5,000/- per sq.mtr.
vi) He further submitted that the present land pertaining to village Padghe. He submitted that this Court has allotted uniform rate to the acquisition of land village-wise and many a times, even the adjoining village has got the same rate.
vii) The issue whether the Government after acquisition has put a land in a particular use to their benefit is not really a matter of concern because what matter is, for what purpose the Government has acquired the particular land of a village and if the part of it after acquisition is used to a particular use, for example commercial building has been built up by the Government through it's Planning Authority, CIDCO or either MMRDA and another part of land in the village is kept open for the purpose of garden/recreation purpose.
That will not mean that the land for which the garden is reserved, would get much less rate comparing the land on which the commercial building has been built.
viii) He submitted that though valuer has for the purpose of development, deducted 33%, and 15% for location, according to him the said deduction is too high. He submitted that this Court in its judgment including Division Bench as far as the development is ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 10/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc concerned, has deducted 10% of the market value which has been derived at. He referred to para no.26 and para no.27 of the evidence. He submitted that in the cross-examination of the valuer in para no.14, there is reference that lease instances which were brought on court, was tendered as regards the Weigh Bridge and as regards to Shakti Constructions, the land was acquired "by offer". He further submitted that the land of Weigh Bridge and Shakti Constructions are at lower level from the national highway no.4 - Mumbai-Pune. He further submitted that as far as the lease agreement of the Shakti Constructions is concerned with CIDCO, there were restrictions imposed and lease was for the period of 60 years.
ix) He further submitted that if the average of the lease deed instance are taken, the amount would be Rs.3,800/- per sq.mtr. He submitted that the valuer has deducted the amount twice on the count of 33% and 15% in Shakti Construction, Lease Deed.
x) He further submitted that village Padghe is within the commercial zone. Therefore, the deduction at the most could have been 10%. In any case even if the third instant is not taken into consideration and only the first two instances are taken, then after adding the same, an average of two can be taken and deduction can be only 10%. Therefore, the rate at the most would be Rs.3,732/- per ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 11/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc sq.mtr.
xi) He further submitted that evidence was led for freehold land and on the said evidence, no cross was conducted. The valuer has standardized the thing and has submitted that the lessee gets 60%, and 40% goes to the lessor.
xii) He further submitted that as far as deduction is concerned, he referred to the judgment of Supreme Court passed in C.R. Nagaraja Shetty and harped on para 12 of the said judgment which says that positive evidence on the deduction should be led.
xiii) He further submitted that Section 51-A of the Act allows the claimant can file certified copy of the lease deed/sale deed and in such a situation, there will be no need to examine any party to prove the document of sale deed/lease deed.
xiv) He further submitted that the letter of the year 2007 issued by Law and Judiciary Department, shows that the rate of Rs.1,725/- per sq.mtr. for land of village Roadpali has been accepted by the State. He further submitted that in the judgment of Trimbak Thakur, the rate of Rs.1,725/- per sq.mtr. has been accepted. Against the said judgment of Division Bench of Bombay High Court, CIDCO carried the matter to the Supreme Court. And the Special Leave Petition in Supreme Court was dismissed. Therefore, the rate of ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 12/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc Rs.1,725/- per sq.mtr. has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
xv) He thereafter showed the development plan of the year 1994. He referred to the lease instance of Shakti Construction which was a residential/commercial plot and the rate fixed was Rs.2,727/- per sq. mtr.
xvi) He placed reliance on the order passed by the Supreme Court on 25 July, 2016 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13455 of 2016 passed in Changa Kanu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra whereby the SLP was dismissed thereby confirming the judgment of Division Bench of this Court passed by Hon'ble Shri Justice Oak concerning land situated in village Bambavi. The notification dated 24 September, 1986 the Division Bench of Bombay High Court had fixed a rate of Rs.1,725/- per sq.mtr. in Changa K. Thakur (supra). Therefore, now the said rate gets confirmed. xvii) He further filed on record, the additional written submissions wherein he had given four options in order to decide the market rate in the present proceedings.
xviii) He submitted that the land has a levelled ground and at the distance of 2 k.m. the lands are NA Lands and the Panvel City is 5 k.m. away. He further submitted that neighbour is all developed land. Therefore, even the subject land has high potential. ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 13/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc xix) While concluding, Mr.Kulkarni submitted that as per the judgment of Babibai (supra) this court is supposed to fairly consider the entire evidence on record. And thereafter decide what rate would be applicable. He submitted that in evidence two lease evidence were produced and both the lease documents have been exhibited. xx) The leading authorities relied upon by Mr. Shriram Kulkarni on behalf of the claimant are as follows :-
a) State of Maharashtra vs. Ashok Wani-2008 (6)ALL MR 65
b) Sabhia Mulla vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 2012 SC 2709
c) Abdul Aziz Patel vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, First Appeal No. 875 of 1985.
d) Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona, (1988) 3 SCC 751.
e) State of Maharashtra vs. Nakul G. Patil, First Appeal No. 112 of 2009
f) Babibai Babu Patil vs. State of Maharashtra, Civil Appeal No(s).1564/65 of 2016.
g) The State of Maharashtra vs. Trimbak Jana Thakur -First Appeal No. 646 of 1995
h) Nama Padu Hudar vs. State of Maharashtra 1993 (3) BCR 54.
i) C.R. Nagaraja Shetty vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Estate Officer, 2009 (11) SCC 75.
j) Shaji Kuria Kose vs. Indian Oil Corporation (2001) 7 SCC 650.
k) Manohar vs. State of Maharashtra, (2025) SCC OnLine ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 14/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc SC 1519
l) Trishila Jain vs. State of Uttaranchal , AIR 2011 SC 2458
m) Mehta Ravindra Rai Ajit Rai vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1989 SC 2051
n) Judgment of Single Judge of Bombay High Court in The Special Land Acquisition Officer (3) Mumbai Suburban District & J.P.Shah vs. The Deputy General Manager, MTNL in LAR No. 4 of 1999.
2. Submissions of Respondent - State
i) In response Additional Government Pleader Mr. A. R. Patil, appeared and firstly submitted that section 4 notification was issued on 24 September, 1986 and on the said date, the region around the acquired land was not developed. He submitted that the compensation which is granted to the claimant should not be a bonanza. He submitted that no evidence was led by the claimant to prove the market rate of the acquired land.
ii) He also showed me Section 24 of the Act and more particularly the provisions of 5th and 6th clauses which deal with what shall not be taken into consideration for determining compensation.
iii) He further submitted that in land acquisition proceedings, one has to understand that if two adjacent lands are acquired and after acquisition, if one piece of land is used for garden and another ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 15/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc piece of land is used for airport, the compensation payable would not defer, since what has to be seen is the position of land, on the date it is acquired and not what is the future use of the acquired land.
iv) He further submitted that N.A. potentiality of the land is one of the factors to be considered while compensation is fixed, out of other factors which have to be seen. He submitted that the Special Leave Petition of the CIDCO was rejected on the ground that there was a delay in filing the Special Leave Petition. Therefore the Supreme Court has not on merits accepted the rate of Rs.1,725/- per sq.mtr.
v) He further submitted that the State has not accepted the rate of Rs.1,725/- per sq.mtr. and the Supreme Court has remanded the matter back to the High Court to decide on merits the compensation to be payable to the acquired land. Even in Lok Adalat as far as notification of 1986 is concerned, the State has not settled any claims of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.1,725/- per sq. mtr.
vi) He further submitted that future use of the land should not be considered as a guiding principle. He submitted that even though there is no cross examination, still the court has to look into whether the claimant is able to prove the market value and the provisions of clause 5th of Section 24 has to be looked into.
vii) He submitted that ultimately it is the public who would ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 16/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc have to pay for the compensation to be payable of the acquired land. He submitted that where large chunk of land are acquired, belting system may not be applicable. He argued that just because the land is nearby and in same node, the rates cannot be unilateral. He further argued that the lands are divided according to their location and hence different rates are applied.
viii) He further stated the rate of lease plots should not be considered as relied upon in the present proceedings. The lease agreement referred by the claimants are pursuant to the tender bill floated. Therefore, the same cannot be relied upon while deciding the market value. He submitted that these lease instances were discarded by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court. There is a reference of three lease instances by the Supreme Court in the judgment of Lalchand (supra).
ix) He submitted that in Changa K. Thakur (supra), it was the claimant who had gone to Supreme Court challenging the rate granted by this Court and in any case, after the Supreme Court passing the order in case of Changa K. Thakur (supra) on 25 July, 2016, Supreme Court in the case of Babibai (supra) which pertains to the land of village Padghe remanded the matter back to the Bombay High Court by its order dated 31 October, 2017. This will be relevant ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 17/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc since in the present proceedings of Raja Joshi, the land is from village Padghe. He submitted that ultimately what Supreme Court has done is important since Supreme Court has raised a doubt as to the rate arrived at Rs.1,725/- per sq.mtr.
x) To buttress his submissions, learned Additional Government Pleader referred to following authorities of Supreme Court and Bombay High Court :-
1) Chimanal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona - 1988 (3) SCC 751
2) Manipur Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Collector of Hailakanda - (1997) 9 SCC 673
3) Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority - (2004) 10 SCC 745.
4) Food Corporation of India vs. Makhan Singh -
(1992) 3 SCC 67.
5) Bhule Ram vs. Union of India & Anr. - (2014) 11 SCC 307. 6) Hookiyar Singh & Ors. vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Moradabad & Anr. - (1996) 3 SCC 766 7) Rajashekhar Taradandi & Ors. vs. Assistant
Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer & Ors. - (1996) 9 SCC 642
8) Mohammad Raofuddin vs. Land Acquisition Officer - (2009) 14 SCC 367.
9) Bijendra vs. State of Maharashtra - (2018) 11 SCC 180 ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 18/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc
10) Administrator General of West Bengal vs. Collector, Varanasi (1988) 2 SCC 150
11) Kasturi vs. State of Haryana - (2003) 1 SCC 354
12) Kanvarsi Kanwar Singh vs. Union of India - (1998) 8 SCC 136
13) Lalchand vs. Union of India - (2009) 15 SCC 769
14) Omprakash vs. Union of India of the Supreme Court - (2004) 10 SCC 627
15) General Manager, Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr.. - (2008) 14 SCC 745.
16) Nama Padu Hudar vs. State of Maharashtra -
1993 (3) BCR 54.
17) State of Maharashtra vs. Ishwarsharan Bhargava - 2008 (3) Mh.L.J. 331
18) Dinkar Balu Bhopi vs. State of Maharashtra - First Appeal No. 1082 of 2005 [D] Points for Determination :
The only question argued before me was the assessment of the market value of the acquired land as on the date of the notification issued under Section 4 of the Act.
1. Legal Principles and Factors to determine compensation of acquired land.
i) Section 23 of the Act, lays down matters to be considered in determining compensation. Apart from Section 23, one has to also ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 19/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc see Section 24, which states matters to be neglected in determining compensation.
ii) The following judgments defines the law on the subject.
(a) Supreme Court in the judgment of Chimanlal Hargovinddas (supra), laid down 14 factors in order to decide the methodology for valuation of acquired land. Para nos. 4 and 8 read as under :
4. The following factors must be etched on the mental screen:
(1) A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award and the Court cannot take into account the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition officer in his Award unless the same material is produced and proved before the court.
(2) So also the Award of the Land Acquisition officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial court open or exposed to challenge before the Court hearing the Reference. It is merely an offer made by the Land Acquisition officer and the material utilised by him for making his valuation cannot be utilised by the Court unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the Court to suit in appeal against the Award, approve or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition officer, as if it were an appellate court.
(3) The court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it.
(4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the Court. Of course the materials placed and proved by the other side can also be taken into account for this purpose.
(5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined as on the crucial date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of Notifications ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 20/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc under Sections 6 and 9 are irrelevant).
(6) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of valuation (date of publication of notification under Section 4) as if the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land at a reasonable price.
(7) In doing so by the instances method, the Court has to correlate the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which provides the index of market value.
(8) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account. (Some times instances are rigged up in anticipation of Acquisition of land).
(9) Even post notification instances can be taken into account (1) if they are very proximate,(2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of the resultant improvement in development prospects.
(10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances have to be identified on the following considerations:
(i) proximity from time angle,
(ii) proximity from situation angle.
(11) Having identified the instances which provide the index of market value the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm and the market value of the land under acquisition may be deduced by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-a-
vis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition. (12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a prudent purchaser would do. (13) The market value of the land under acquisition has there after to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors. (14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent man of the world of business would do. We may illustrate some such illustrative (not exhaustive) factors:
::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 :::
KVM 21/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc Plus factors Minus factors
1. smallness of size. 1. largeness of area.
2. proximity to a 2. situation in the interior road. at a distances from the Road.
3. frontage on a 3. narrow strip of land road. with very small frontage compared to death.
4. nearness to 4. lower level requiring the developed area. depressed portion to be filled up.
5. regular shape 5. remoteness from developed locality.
6. level vis-a-vis 6. some special under land acquisition.
disadvantageous factor which would deter a purchaser.
7. special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage.
(15) The evaluation of these factors of course depends on the facts of each case. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule. Common sense is the best and most reliable guide. For instance, take the factor regarding the size. A building plot of land say 500 to 1000 sq. yds cannot be compared with a large tract or block of land of say l000 sq. yds or more. Firstly while a smaller plot is within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be developed by preparing a lay out, carving out roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 22/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by making a deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approx. between 20% to 50% to account for land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out small plots. The discounting will to some extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity is picking up, and whether waiting period during which the capital of the entrepreneur would be looked up, will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards. (16) Every case must be dealt with on its own facts pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of land in which position the Judge must place himself. (17) These are general guidelines to be applied with understanding informed with common sense.
8. ...... It is common knowledge that when a large block of land is required to be valued, appropriate deduction has to be made for setting aside land for carving out roads, leaving open spaces, and plotting out smaller plots suitable for construction of buildings. The extent of the area required to be set apart in this connection has to be assessed by the Court having regard to shape, size and situation of the concerned block of land etc. There cannot be any hard and fast rule as to how much deduction should be made to account for this factor. It is essentially a question of fact depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. It does not involve drawing upon any principle of law. It cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error in forming the opinion that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case 25% deduction was required to be made in this connection. The High Court cannot be faulted on this score.
[ Emphasis supplied ]
(b) In the judgment of Manipur Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Collector of Hailakandi, (1997) 9 SCC 673, the Supreme Court held that it was for the claimants to prove as to what would be the reasonable compensation which the land is capable of fetching in the open market. The question would be whether the land under acquisition, if put to private sale in an open market, would be capable of securing ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 23/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc the same price as offered by way of compensation under acquisition. Paragraph no.4 of the said judgment reads as under :-
4. .......... It is settled law that the burden is on the claimants to prove by adducing cogent, reliable and acceptable evidence the market value under Section 23(1) of the Act. The burden does not shift over to the Government but it is the duty of the court to assess the evidence adduced by the claimants and determine the compensation on the touchstone of prudent purchaser in the open market, i.e., whether he would offer market value at the rates proposed by the court. The evidence has to be put to the test whether the sale deed or the evidence adduced would offer the market value higher than that which has been determined by the Land Acquisition Officer. The compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is an offer that binds the Government but it is not conclusive. It is for the claimants to prove as to what would be the reasonable compensation which the land is capable of fetching in the open market. The question is whether the land under acquisition, if put to the private sale in an open market, would be capable of securing the same price as offered by way of determination of the compensation after compulsory acquisition.
Considered from this perspective, the court considered the evidence adduced and determined the compensation. ........
[ Emphasis supplied ]
(c) Supreme Court in the judgment of Kasturi & Ors. vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 354, held that in absence of evidence merely saying that the area adjoining his land is a developed area, is not enough, it does not give the land the character of a developed area. Para no.7 reads as under :-
7. ......... So the amount of expenses that may be incurred in developing the area also varies. A claimant who claims that his land is fully developed and nothing more is required to be done for developmental purposes, must show on the basis of evidence that it is such a land and it is so located. In the absence of such evidence, merely saying that area adjoining his land is developed area, is not enough particularly when the extent of the acquired land is large and even if a small portion of the land is abutting the main road in the developed area, does not give the land character of a developed ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 24/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc area. In 84 acres of land acquired even if one portion on one side abuts the main road, the remaining large area where planned development is required, needs laying of internal roads, drainage, sewer, water, electricity lines, providing civic amenities etc. However, in cases of some land where there are certain advantages by virtue of the developed area around, may help in reducing the percentage of cut to be applied, as the developmental charges required may be less on that account. There may be various factual factors which may have to be taken into consideration while applying the cut in payment of compensation towards developmental charges, may be in some cases it is more than 1/3 and in some cases less than 1/3. It must be remembered that there is difference between a developed area and an area having potential value, which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in the area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot, particularly when vast tracts are acquired, as in this case, for development purpose.
[ Emphasis supplied ]
(d) Supreme Court in the judgment of Bhule Ram Vs. Union of India - (2014) 11 SCC 307 , while considering the ratio laid down in the earlier judgments including that of Sabhia Mulla (supra), held that, while determining market value, the potential value, the locality, situation, size and shape of the land and market value of other lands in the same locality or adjacent has to be seen. Para no.8 to 12 read as under :
8. The market value of the land is to be assessed as per Section 23 of the Act. Valuation of immovable property is not an exact science, nor can it be determined like an algebraic problem, as it abounds in uncertainties and no straitjacket formula can be laid down for arriving at exact market value of the land. There is always a room for conjecture, and thus the court must act reluctantly to venture too far in this direction. The factors such as the nature and position of the land to be acquired, adaptability and advantages, the purpose for which the land can be used in the most lucrative way, injurious affect resulting in damages to other properties, its potential value, the locality, situation and size and shape of the land, the rise or depression in the value of ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 25/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc the land in the locality consequent to the acquisition etc., are relevant factors to be considered. Section 23 mandates that the market value of the land is to be assessed at the time of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Therefore, value which has to be assessed is the value to the owner who parts with his property and not the value to the new owner who takes it over. ......
9. The concept of guess work is not unknown to various fields of law as it applies in the cases relating to insurance, taxation, compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as well as under the Labour Laws. The court has a discretion applying the guess work to the facts of the given case but it is not unfettered and has to be reasonable having connection to the facts on record adduced by the parties by way of evidence. ......
10. In Trishala Jain & Anr. v. State of Uttaranchal & Anr. , AIR 2011 SC 2458, this Court held that in case the parties do not lead any evidence on record it is difficult for the court to award compensation merely on the basis of imagination/conjectures, etc. The Act provides for compensation for acquisition of land and deprivation of the property which is reasonable and just. ......
11. The market value of the land should be determined taking into consideration the existing geographical situation of the land, existing use of the land, already available advantages, like proximity to National or State Highway or road and/or notionally or intentionally renowned tourist destination or developed area, and market value of other land situated in the same locality or adjacent or very near to acquired land and also the size of such a land. (Vide: Viluben Jhalejar Contractor v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2005 SC 2214; Karnataka Housing Board v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2011) 2 SCC 246; Bilkis v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2011) 12 SCC 646 and Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla v. Land Acquisition Officer & Ors., AIR 2012 SC 2709).
12. Where huge tract of land had been acquired and the same is not continuous, the court has always emphasised on applying the principle of belting system for the reason that where different lands with different survey numbers belonging to different owners and having different locations, cannot be considered to be a compact block. Land having frontage on the highway would definitely have better value than lands farther away from highway. (Vide: Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited v. G. Mohan Reddy & Ors., (2010) 15 SCC 412).
[ Emphasis supplied ] ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 26/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc
2. Factors to be neglected in determining compensation
i) Additional Government Pleader placed reliance on Clauses fifthly and sixthly of Section 24 of the Act. The provisions of Section 24 of the Act refers to matters not to be considered in determining compensation. Clauses 5th and 6th of Section 24 read as under :-
" Section 24. Matters to be neglected in determining compensation.- first,... .... ....
Fifthly, any increase to the value of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it will be put; Sixthly, any increase to the value of the other land of the person interested likely to accrue from the use to which the land acquired, will be put;
.... "
(a) Supreme Court in the judgment of Hookiyar Singh & Ors., vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Moradabad & Anr., (1996) 3 SCC 766 held that Section 24 clause 5th prohibits taking into consideration future use of the land which is put into acquisition. It further held that the court must not indulge in feats of imagination but sit in the armchair of a prudent purchaser in open market and put a question to itself whether it would offer the same price. Para no. 6 of the said ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 27/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc judgment reads as under :-
6. It is settled law that the burden of proof of market value prevailing as on the date of publication of Section 4(1) notification is always on the claimants. ...... Section 24 clause fifthly prohibits taking into consideration future user to which the land will put when acquired. Considered from the fluctuation in the prices placed on record and large area involved in the acquisition, situation of the lands, actual user of the lands as agricultural lands and on the totality of the facts in this case, treating all the lands as agricultural lands, we are of the considered view that the market value of the land per acre would be Rs 35,000. The claimants are accordingly entitled to this amount. ......
[Emphasis supplied]
3. The principles of Public Funds in process of acquiring land for public purposes
i) Additional Government Pleader emphasized that Land Acquisition compensation is not to be treated as a bonanza to the land owner.
(a) He relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India vs. Makhan Singh & Anr., (1992) 3 SCC 67 which held that it is the duty of the Court while ascertaining compensation to see that it is just, not merely to the individual whose property is taken, but to the public which has to pay for it, even if it be a public corporation set up for public needs. Paragraph no. 4 of the said judgment reads as under :-
4. The purpose of the Land Acquisition Act is to empower the Government to acquire land only for public purposes or for a company, and, where it is for a company, the acquisition is subject ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 28/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc to the provisions of Part VII. Public purposes being such diverse in nature the Governments of the time have been undertaking large- scale acquisitions to promote and achieve the common good. The Act is neither a tool in the hands of the Government to deprive any person his land without payment of its market value, solatium at the prescribed rate and statutory interest, nor a bonanza to a land owner whose land has been acquired, permitting him to get a fanciful inflated price. The Act therefore provides a machinery to determine the market value of the land as existing on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. Section 15 of the Act mandates that in determining the amount of compensation, the Collector shall be guided by the provisions as contained in Sections 23 and 24. Section 23 contains a list of positives to be taken into account by the court determining compensation. The first requirement is that the court must take into consideration the market value of the land on the date of the publication of the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act. This is the reason why courts have looked for comparable sales of lands at or close to the date of the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act to discover a basis towards determining compensation. Somewhere in the process, where difficulties crop up, the courts employ the rule of thumb, since compensation has to be assessed and arms cannot be raised in despair. It is the bounden duty of the court while ascertaining compensation to see that it is just, not merely to the individual whose property is taken, but to the public which is to pay for it; even if it be a public corporation set up for public needs.
[Emphasis supplied]
(b) Similarly, in the judgment of Mohammad Raofuddin vs. Land Acquisition Officer, (2009) 14 SCC 367 , the Supreme Court held that the compensation to be determined must be just and fair and not merely to the individual but also to the public who has to pay for it. Para no.14 of the said judgment reads as under :-
14. Thus, comparable sale instances of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act are the best guide for determination of the market value of the land to arrive at a fair estimate of the amount of compensation payable to a landowner. Nevertheless, while ascertaining compensation, it is the duty of the Court to see that the compensation so determined is just and fair not merely to the individual whose property has been acquired but also to the public ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 29/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc which is to pay for it.
[Emphasis supplied ]
4. On whom the burden of proof lies ?
(a) Supreme Court in the judgment of Kiran Tandon vs. Allahabad Development Authority & Anr., (2004) 10 SCC 745 held that it is the claimant who has to prove that the price offered for acquisition of his land is inadequate for which he has to produce materials on record in Court. Para no.10 of the said judgment reads as under :-
10. Before examining the merits of the contentions raised, it will be useful to bear in mind the legal principle in the matter of determination of compensation. The Collector's award under Section 11 is nothing more than an offer of compensation made by the Government to the claimants whose property is acquired. The burden of proving that the amount of compensation awarded by the Collector is inadequate lies upon the claimant and he is in the position of a plaintiff. The court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it. The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the basis of the materials produced in the court. The material produced and proved by the other side will also be taken into account for this purpose.
(See Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (1988) 3 SCC 751, and Periyar and Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1991) 4 SCC 195) [ Emphasis supplied ]
5. Determination of fair market rate through comparative sales method
i) If the sale transaction of the year in which notification was issued are not available, and the sale transaction of earlier years ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 30/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc are available on record, apex court has dealt with the issue in following judgment.
(a) In the judgment of Om Prakash Vs. Union of India reported in (2004) 10 SCC 627, Supreme Court held that escalation @ 12% p.a. progressively while considering earlier transaction to be reasonable increase to arrive at the fair market value. Para no.8, 11 and 12 read as under:
8. While the appellant claimants urged that after the notification issued on 8-12-1982, the lands in question had acquired great commercial potentiality and that this fact had been lost sight of by the High Court in assessing the fair market value as on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Act, the learned counsel for the Union of India contends that, despite the change in the master plan, there was hardly any change in the land use between 8-12-1982 and 2-6-1983 when the notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued. The land had been continued to be used for agricultural and allied purposes and there was no commercial exploitation of the land at all despite it being allowed as a result of change in the master plan.
11. In the circumstances, the High Court was justified in working out the fair market value of the lands in question on the basis of Rs.16,750/- per bigha as on 30-10-1963. The High Court noticed that in several judgments of this Court escalation at different and varying rates i.e. 6% per annum from 1959 to 1965, @ 10% per annum for every year from 1966 to 1973 and @ 12% per annum from 1975 had been considered to be reasonable increase to arrive at the fair market value, assuming that the pace of escalation during this period was normal for the entire period from 1959 onwards. Since no material was placed on record to show that there was any abnormality during the period, the High Court applied the same principle to the facts and circumstances before it, and accepted increase of 10% every year progressively from 1963 to 1973 and thereafter @ 12% every year progressively upto the date of acquisition. The High Court noticed in the judgment that if escalation is allowed on this basis, the fair market value would be Rs.1,28,889 per bigha. In case progressive increase is allowed @ 10% for the entire period, the amount will work out to Rs.1,08,397 per bigha. Allowing appreciation @ 12% for every year, not ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 31/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc cumulatively, but at a flat rate of 12% per annum from 1963 to 1983, the amount would work out to Rs.56,112 per bigha. The High Court in its judgment under appeal pointed out that the market value of Rs.16,750/- per bigha fixed in the case of Dharambir vs. Union of India RFA No. 554 of 1992 decided on 23.09.1996 was not in respect of commercial land but only of agricultural land. That the market value of agricultural land is much lower than that of land suitable for commercial purposes, is trite. After having worked out the market value of the lands on various bases and keeping in view the fact that between 8-12-1982 and 2-6-1983, the lands in question had at least some commercial potentiality, the High Court decided that the fair market value of all categories of lands situated in the villages in question as on the date of acquisition should be fixed at Rs.82,255 per bigha.
12. Having heard the learned counsel and perused the judgment, we find it difficult to disagree with the exercise carried out by the High Court. We think that the High Court was justified in assessing the market value at a higher rate on account of some increased potentiality of the lands. If at all, the High Court has erred on the safer side in fixing the market value at Rs.82,255 per bigha. In the circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention advanced by the claimants-appellants and the Union of India in their respective appeals. Taking an overall view of the matter, we are satisfied that the judgment of the High Court requires no interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
[ Emphasis supplied ]
(b) Supreme court in the judgment of ONGC Vs.Rameshbhai Patel reported in (2008) 14 SCC 745, held that if no evidence of comparable sales is available, then the market value can be fixed on the basis of the market value fixed in the earlier acquisitions. Further it held that for rural areas the rate can be 7.5% and for urban areas the rate can be 10% to 15%. Para no.9, 13, 14, 18 and 19 read as under:
9. We also find from the evidence of one of the claimants -
Laljibhai examined as CW1, that the boundaries of Santhal, Kasalpura and Modipur villages are adjacent to the acquired lands; and that the lands of one Ramanbhai Keshavlal of Santhal Village ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 32/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc acquired on 6-1-1987 (subject matter of Ex.15) and the acquired lands were in neighbouring areas divided only by three or four agricultural fields. ...... We are therefore of the view that in the absence of any evidence relating to sale transactions or acquisitions relating to the village of Ijapura itself, and having regard to the evidence relating to proximity of Santhal lands, Ex.15 offered a reasonable basis for determining the market value of the acquired lands in Ijapura. In view of Ex.15 relating to neighbouring Santhal, Ex.16 relating to Chalsana loses relevance.
13. Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors:
situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. On the other hand, in urban or semi-urban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties.
14. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi-urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same.
18. The increase in market value is calculated with reference to the market value during the immediate preceding year. When market value is sought to be ascertained with reference to a transaction which took place some years before the acquisition, the method adopted is to calculate the year to year increase. As the percentage of increase is always with reference to the previous year's market value, the appropriate method is to calculate the increase cumulatively and not applying a flat rate. The difference between the two methods is shown by the following illustration ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 33/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc (with reference to a 10% increase over a basic price of Rs.10/- per square metre):
Year By flat rate increase By cumulative increase method method 1987 (Base Year) 10.00 10.00 1988 10 + 1 = 11.00 10.00 + 1.00 = 11.00 1989 11 + 1 = 12.00 11.00 + 1.10 = 12.10 1990 12 + 1 = 13.00 12.10 + 1.21 = 13.31 1991 13 + 1 = 14.00 13.31 + 1.33 = 14.64 1992 14 + 1 = 15.00 14.64 + 1.46 = 16.10
19. We may also point out that application of a flat rate will lead to anomalous results. This may be demonstrated with further reference to the above illustration. In regard to the sale transaction in 1987, where the price was Rs.10 per square metre, if the annual increase to be applied is a flat rate of 10%, the increase will be Rs.1 per annum during each of the five years 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1992. If the price increase is to be determined with reference to sale transaction of the year 1989 when the price was Rs.12 per square metre, the flat rate increase will be Rs.1.20 per annum, for the years 1990, 1991 and 1992. If the price increase is determined with reference to a sale transaction of the year 1990 when the price was Rs.13 per square metre, then the flat rate increase will be Rs.1.30 per annum for the years 1991 and 1992. It will thus be seen that even if the percentage of increase is constant, the application of a flat rate leads to different amounts being added depending upon the market value in the base year. On the other hand, the cumulative rate method will lead to consistency and more realistic results. Whether the base price is Rs.10/- or Rs.12/10 or Rs.13/31, the increase will lead to the same result. The logical, practical and appropriate method is therefore to apply the increase cumulatively and not at a flat rate.
[Emphasis supplied] The above discussion gives a broad background on which the market rate of the land which is acquired is to be calculated. ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 34/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc
6. Evidence Led
i) In the present proceedings the claimants have examined two witnesses. The claimant's witness no. 1 - Rohidas in para 9 states that Roadpali and Padghe are adjacent village. It is true that at the time of acquisition, the lands under reference were paddy and varkas. It is true that in the year 1986, there was no industrial unit in our village. It is true that nearest railway route from Roadpali - Panvel.
ii) Similarly the Claimant's witness no.2 - Valuer - Manjiri Joshi in her evidence mentioned that Panvel city is 5.6 kms away from village Padghe. In paragraph no. 27 she states the land under reference was acquired on 24/09/1986 and lands, involved in the said First Appeals also were acquired on 24/09/1986 for the same purpose. The above referred High Court decisions indicate that lands from the same village i.e. Roadpali, acquired on the same date in 1986 having similar topographical features and infrastructural facilities have fetched a market value of Rs.1,725/- per sq.mtr. and hence form a good piece of Evidence for substantiating the market value of the land in question. In paragraph no. 38 she states that, it is true to say that the land under reference is surrounded by agricultural lands. The land under reference was a paddy land. It is not true to say that at the preparation of valuation report, I have taken into consideration the ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 35/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc present situation. It is not true to say that the land under reference is not abutting any State or National highway. It is true to say that the acquired land is at the distance of 2 k.m. from the extended limit of Panvel Municipal Council. It is true to say that the land under reference is surrounded by agricultural lands. The land under reference was paddy land. It is true to say that no independent water and electricity facility was available to the acquired land. The nearest gaothan to land under reference is the gaothan of village Roadpali. It is at same distance. The nearest railway station to the acquired land is at Navade and at Panvel. Panvel Railway station is at a distance of 4.5 km. It is true to say that Panvel S.T. Stand is at a distance of 4.5 k.m. from the land under reference. It is true to say that prominent industrial estate Taloja is the nearest industrial estate to the land under reference. It is at a distance of 3 k.m. from the land under reference. Steel Market at Kalamboli is at a distance of 2 k.m. from the acquired land. It is true to say that there was no industrial unit at village Roadpali. It is not true to say that beyond gaothan area of village Roadpali, there was no N.A. development. It is true to say that in the year 1986, the frequency of railway was very less. It is not true to say that Diva-Panvel railway does not pass through village Roadpali. It is true to say that in the year 1986 Belapur-Panvel railway track was ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 36/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc not available. It is true to say that the land under reference was partly agricultural and partly varkas. It is true to say that the land under reference was yielding paddy crop and depended upon monsoon. It is true to say that for paddy crop saturation of water is necessary and for that land required bunds. It is true to say that there was bunding to the acquired land. It is true to say that acquired land is at low level from Mumbai-Pune National Highway No. 4. It is true to say that the landmarks distance mentioned in the report by me are aerial distances. In para 40 - it is stated that I have referred to the lease instances from the village Kalamboli. It is true that the land in the said lease instances were given by tender system. The plots in the lease contracts were given for non-agricultural use. It is true to say that the area of the plots in the said lease instances was comparatively small. It is true to say that after acquiring lands CIDCO has converted the lands for commercial purpose. It is true to say that the CIDCO has leased out the plots on competitive bidding basis. It is not true to say that in competitive bidding method of lease the rates are always higher. It is not true to say that the lease instances are not comparable to the land under reference.
iii) Therefore, In the present proceedings what has been referred by the claimant and the expert witness in form of a valuer, is ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 37/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc to the two lease instances, as sale instances were not available since all the 96 villages are covered under the "New Bombay Project" after the first notification of the year 1970, no sale was permitted. It not only in the present proceeding but all the other proceedings also this Court has held that from 1970 no sale deeds were available. So what was available was only two lease deeds which were referred in practically all matters.
7. Leasehold vs. Freehold
i) The issue of determining market value of a freehold property with reference to a premium for a leasehold plot, is no more res integra.
(a) Supreme Court in the judgment of Lal Chand vs. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769, held that it is not advisable to rely upon the allotment/auction rates in determining the market values of adjoining freehold lands. It is very difficult to arrive at the market value of a freehold property with reference to the premises for a leasehold plot. Paragraph nos. 25, 26 and 27 read as under :-
25. Some development authorities allot plots on freehold basis, that is by way of absolute sale. Some development authorities like DDA allot plots on leasehold basis. Some have premium which is almost equal to sale price, with a nominal annual rent, whereas others have lesser premium, and more substantial annual rent.
26. There are standard methods for determining the ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 38/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc annual rental value with reference to the value of a freehold property. There are also standard methods for determining the value of freehold (ownership) rights with reference to the annual rental income in regular leases. But it is very difficult to arrive at the market value of a freehold property with reference to the premium for a leasehold plot allotted by DDA. As the period of lease is long, the rent is very nominal, some times there is a tendency among public to equate the lease premium rate (allotment price) charged by DDA, as being equal to the market value of the property.
27. However, in view of the difficulties referred to above, it is not safe or advisable to rely upon the allotment rates/auction rates in regard to the plots formed by DDA in a developed layout, in determining the market value of the adjoining undeveloped freehold lands. The DDA brochure price has therefore to be excluded as being not relevant.
[ Emphasis supplied ]
(b) Similarly, Division Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Ishwarsharan Kedarnath Bhargava - 2008 (3) Mh.L.J. 331, while dealing with land of village Rabale District Thane meant for New Bombay Project, the Bench held that lease instances does not create transferrable title or interest in the acquired land. Para no. 11 reads as under :-
11. Now, we would proceed to examine the merits of the present case in the light of the above settled principles of law. The Claimants admittedly did not produce on record any sale instance either prior to the date of the notification or immediately thereafter which could give an idea as to what was the price of the land which a willing buyer was ready to pay and a willing seller was ready to offer. The lease instances produced firstly relate to a period much prior to the date of notification and secondly they create no transferable title or interest in the acquired land. To some extent it can safely be concluded that the claimants have failed to discharge the onus placed upon them in its entirety. They have primarily relied upon the oral evidence and certain awards/judgments which were produced by them before the Reference Court. Witness No.3, Ashok Chandrashekhar Vaidya, who claims to be an Architect and ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 39/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc Valuer, stated that he had inspected different gat numbers in village Rabale for valuation purposes and he referred to certain lease deeds of the plots abutting Thane-Belapur Road. In his statement, he made reference to a petrol filling station which was in operation since 1956 and stated that the lease deed was executed at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month which was again increased to Rs.2,250/- per month. He prepared his valuation report which is at Exhibit-40. In his examination-in-chief he stated that the soil of the land was hard and infrastructure facilities like water, electricity and road transport were available. In his cross-examination he conceded that he had no notes about the data collected for valuation purposes and also that he had not considered the sale instances quoted in the award of Land Acquisition Officer and that he had added interest at the rate of 7 per cent .
[ Emphasis supplied ]
8. Notification of the year 1970 for "New Bombay Project"
(a) In the judgment of Nama Hudar Vs . State of Maharashtra reported in 1993(3) BCR 54, the Division Bench of Bombay High Court, while fixing market value for village Kamothe and Panvel, fixed the rate @ Rs.20/- per sq.mtr. and Rs.25/- per sq.mtr. respectively.
Supreme court accepted this test and applied in two of its decision.
(b) Similarly in State of Maharashtra Vs. Prakash Deodhar (2008) 5 BCR 708, and granted @ Rs.25/- per sq.mtr. Para no.17 reads as under :-
17. The Claimants would be entitled to compensation for acquisition of their lands as under :-
(a) Lands falling within 750 metres of the National Highway - Rs.25/- per sq. metre.
(b) Land falling within 750 to 1500 metres of the National Highway - Rs.23/- per sq. metre.::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 :::
KVM 40/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc
(c) Land falling beyond 1500 metres of the National Highway
- Rs.21/- per sq. metre.
(c) Supreme Court in the judgment of Avinash Naik Vs. State of Maharashtra (2009) 11 SCC 171 granted @ Rs. 10/- per sq.mtr. for notification of the year 1970.
(d) Supreme Court in the case of Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2012) 7 SCC 595, while dealing with land of Village Roadpali, granted compensation @ Rs.25/- per sq.mtr.
(e) Ambaji Dharma Pardeshi vs. State of Maharashtra - Civil Appeal No. 5088 - 5089/2013 - which pertains to village Wadghar, the Supreme Court fixed rate @ Rs.25/- per sq.mtr.
(f) While considering all these judgments in the case of Yashwant Bhagat vs. State of Maharashtra, First Appeal No. 644 of 2019, with relation to a land of village Karanjade I have granted compensation @ Rs.25/- per sq.mtr.
Therefore as far as notification of the year 1970 for New Bombay Project is concerned, for village Padghe @ Rs.25/- per sq.mtr. was granted by this Court and the Supreme Court. ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 41/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc
9. Notification of the year 1986 for "New Bombay Project"
(a) In State of Maharshtra Vs. Shantaram Tandel - First Appeal No.24 of 1995, single judge of this Court accepted the rate of 1970 notification and granted escalation of 10% per annum.
(b) Division Bench of this Court in the judgment delivered in First Appeal No. 646 of 1995 - Trimbak Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra has granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,725/- per sq. mtr. The acquired land in the Trimbak Thakur (supra) case is situated in Village Roadpali. The said land as per the judgment appears to be also a freehold land. While deciding the rate of Rs.1,725/- per sq.mtr., the Division Bench of this Court held in Para no. 23, 24 and 25 as under :-
23. ...... There were no sale-deeds executed right from 1970 to 1984 and it was only already developed land which was given on perpetual lease by the authorities / Corporation for commercial or other purpose. Mainly, three instances are available on record which have been proved in accordance with law and have to be considered for determining the fair market value of the lands. First instance is an allotment letter dated 16th October 1984 vide which an area of 420 square metres being plot No. 413 at Kalamboli, Navi Mumbai, was allotted on 60 years' lease for total premium of Rs.7,06,777. This instance was proved by the witness No.1 Shrikrishna, who stated and who gave rate of the plot at Rs.1873.28 per square metre. The letter of allotment showed that water and power supplies were available; and charges were to be paid directly by the allottee to the authorities concerned. Another witness Karyal, on behalf of the Claimants, also made a reference to this instance; and also stated that CIDCO had developed wholesale steel market in the year 1980 by planning an area of 305 hectares. In his statement he has further stated that in regard to the sale to Anusuya for the purpose of petrol pump the land was leased out by way of tender; and it was at the rate of Rs. 240 per square ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 42/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc meter. The other instance is a lease-deed dated 2nd May, 1986 which was proved and placed on record. In the submission of this witness, the instance was, where the plot in question was given at a premium of Rs.345.87 per square metre; and this was with regard to the plot admeasuring 2250.24 square metre. Still another instance which was proved by the Claimants is with regard to the plot which was admeasuring 1466 square meters given for a weigh bridge at the rate of Rs.2727 per square metre.
24. All the above instances relate to village Kalamboli. From Exhibit 15, the map, it is clear that the location of these lands is nearer to the highway and is part of the already developed area, i.e., steel market or industrial area. Certainly, the lands in question are neither developed to that extent nor entire lands abut the national highway. The instances that have been referred to by the acquiring authority related to the lands which are much farther away from the acquired lands and the developed area. The respondents did not lead any evidence before the learned reference Court, and only relied upon the record of the acquiring authority.
On the basis of the instances proved by the Claimants, it is clear that there has been an increasing trend in the values of the lands surrounding the acquired lands; but that itself would not entitle the Claimants for the same compensation for which the property was leased out or leasehold rights were created by the Corporation. These lands were given after they were fully developed where commercial development had taken place, water and electricity were available, roads and other essential amenities were duly provided for and that all would form part of the costs of development, which have to be deducted from the compensation to be given to the claimants. The Court would also have to consider that in the award in LAR No.172 of 1996, the learned reference Court had awarded R.90 per square metre in the year 1977. The lands in question were acquired 7 years later i.e. in the year 1984. Merely three instances referred to by the Claimants as well as a petrol pump instance can hardly form the basis for determination of the compensation. Since we have found that the instances referred to are of the lands which are fully developed they cannot be taken into consideration and therefore, we have taken the average of two instances referred to in paragraph 23 above; and have computed the amount of compensation by deducting 25%. That is how the compensation has been worked out by us at the rate of Rs.1725/- per square metre with statutory benefits as contemplated under Sections 23 and 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act.
25. In the result, the Appeals are dismissed. Consequently, the Cross Objections are partly allowed. All Civil Applications stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
[ Emphasis supplied ] ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 43/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc
(c) In the judgment of Trimbak Joma Thakur (supra) Supreme Court on 10 March, 2015 while considering the case of CIDCO has remanded the matter back to this Court. In the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 21331-21370 of 2009 which was filed by the CIDCO, in the judgment passed in group of matters by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in which the lead case was Trimbak Joma Thakur (supra), the Supreme Court rejected the SLP on the ground of delay.
(d) The Division Bench of this Court in the judgment of Ashok Wani vs State of Maharashtra in First Appeal No. 1119 of 1997 followed the judgment delivered in Trimbak Thakur matter and admitted that the rate granted by this Court in Trimbak Thakur of Rs.1,725/- per sq.mtr. is the correct and appropriate rate. However, since what was asked from the Court was only Rs.500/- per sq.mtrs., the Court did not grant Rs.1,725/- per sq.mtr. But granted Rs.500/- per sq.mtr. It is pertinent to note here that in Ashok Wani (supra), the acquired land was a village Padghe and the notification is of 1986. In the present proceedings also the land under acquisition is from village Padghe and the notification is of 24 th September 1986. Therefore this judgment becomes most relevant judgment for the present ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 44/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc proceedings.
(e) In the case of Babibai alongwith group of other matters, including that of Wani's matter, Supreme Court by its order dated 31 October, 2017, considering the Full Bench judgment of this Court on the issue whether the claimant could amend their claim which was earlier held by the Division Bench of this Court cannot be done. The Supreme Court held that, as held by the Full Bench of Bombay High Court, the claim can be amended. The CIDCO's SLP was dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.
(f) In the judgment of Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in case of State of Maharashtra vs. Trimbak Joma Thakur reported in 2007 (6) All M.R. 827 alongwith group of matters, the Bench was dealing with the land pertaining to Village Roadpali, while dismissing the State's appeal considering the two lease instances of 1984 and 1986, the Court granted rate of Rs.1,725/- per sq.mtr. with statutory benefits as contemplated under Sections 23 and 23 (1A) of the Act.
(g) Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 21303-21329 of 2009 filed by CIDCO, challenging the judgment of Bombay High Court in the lead case of Ashok Laxman Wani (supra) by its order dated 10 March 2015 dismissed the SLP on the ground of ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 45/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc delay.
(i) Additional Government Pleader had submitted that the State has not accepted the rate of Rs.1,725/- per sq.mtr. and the Supreme Court has remanded the matter back to the High Court to decide on merits the compensation to be payable to the acquired land. Even the Lok Adalat as far as notification of 1986 is concerned, the State has not settled any claims of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.1,725/- per sq. mtr.
10. Letter of Law & Judiciary
(i) On behalf of the claimant, a copy of the letter of the year 2007 issued by Law and Judiciary Department, which shows that the rate of Rs.1,725/- per sq.mtr. for land of village Roadpali was referred to. The letter dated 3 September, 2007, for ease of reference is reproduced hereinbelow :-
GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA No. 999/M. Br., Law and Judiciary Department Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032 Date : 3rd September, 2007 To, The Government Pleader, High Court, Mumbai - 400 032 Subject :- F.A.No. 646 of 1995 in L.A.R. No. 96/1989 & 21 other matters The State of Maharashtra ..... Appellant Vs. ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 46/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc Trimbak Joma Thakur & ors. ..... Respondents (District : Raigad) Sir, With reference to your letter Red. No. 1525/07, dtd.21.08.2007 on the subject noted above, I am directed to inform you that Government has decided to acquiesce in the decision dated 21.06.2007 of Hon'ble High Court, Mumbai in the above noted cases.
Yours faithfully, sd/-
(H.M.Suryavanshi) Superintendent (Legal) Copy forwarded with compliments for information and necessary action to :-
1. The District Government Pleader, Raigad-Alibag
2. The Collector, Raigad-Alibag,
3. The Deputy Secretary, Revenue & Forests Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.
4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Metro Centre No.2, Panvel, Dist : Raigad,
5. The Chief Land & Development Officer, CIDCO, CIDCO Bhavan, Navi Mumbai,
6. Select file (2 Copies).
Hence, this letter shows that the State has accepted the rate @ Rs.1,725/- per sq.mtr. for notification of 198, pursuant to the judgment of this court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Trimbak Joma Thakur in First Appeal No. 646 of 1995.
11. Comparison of market rate @ Rs.20/- & Rs.25/-
Mr. Patil Addl. Govt. Pleader, has handed over a table to indicate that if rate is fixed @ Rs.25/- per sq.mtr. in the year 1970 is accepted ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 47/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc then if 10% rise per annum cumulatively is considered, then in the year 1986 the rate will be Rs.120/- per sq.mtr. and further he handed over a table to indicate rate if Rs.20/- per sq.mtr. in the year 1970 is considered as a fair rate and 10% rise per annum cumulatively is considered, then in the year 1986 the rate will be Rs.115 per sq.mtr. For ease of reference the said two tables are reproduced hereinbelow :
Year Rate (10% rise p.a. Rate (10% rise p.a. cumulatively) in Rupees cumulatively) in Rupees 1970 25 20 1971 27.50 22 1972 30.25 24.5 (24.2) 1973 34 (33.27) 27 (26.95) 1974 37.5 (37.4) 30 (29.7) 1975 41.25 33 1976 45.5 (45.37) 36.5 (36.3) 1977 50 (50.05) 40.5 (40.15) 1978 55 45 (44.55) 1979 60.50 54.5 (54.45) 1980 67 (66.55) 60 (59.95) 1981 74 (73.70) 73 (72.6) 1982 81.50 (81.40) 80.5 (80.3) 1983 90 (89.65) 86 (88.55) 1984 99 95 (94.85) 1985 109 (108.90) 104.5 1986 120 (119.90) 115 (114.95) ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 48/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc
12. Illustration with 30% hike per year
(i) According to me, if Rs.25/- is considered as base rate in the year 1970, then at 30% hike per year following will be the rate :-
Year Amount (30 % hike)
1970 25
1971 32.5
1972 42.25
1973 54.92
1974 71.39
1975 92.80
1976 120.64
1977 156.83
1978 203.87
1979 265.03
1980 344.54
1981 447.90
1982 582.27
1983 756.95
1984 984.03
1985 1279.24
1986 1663.01
(a) Supreme Court on 25 July, 2016 in Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No. 13455 of 2016 in Changa Kanu Thakur vs. State of Maharashtra filed by the claimant dismissed the SLP thereby confirming the judgment of Division Bench of this Court concerning land situated in village Bambavi. The Bombay High Court while ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 49/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc dealing with notification dated 24 September, 1986 fixed a rate of Rs.1,725/- per sq.mtr. Therefore, the said rate can be confirmed in the present proceedings.
(b) Thereafter Supreme Court in the case of Babibai which pertains to the land of village Padghe remanded the matter back to the Bombay High Court by its order dated 31 October, 2017. This will be relevant since in the present proceedings, the land is from village Padghe.
(c) Bokadvira though this matter is pending before Supreme Court, Bokadvira belonging from Taluka - Uran, District - Raigad and the distance between Bokadvira and Padghe is 32 kms.
(d) In the judgment of Division Bench of Bombay High Court in case of State of Maharashtra vs. Nakul Govind Patil & Ors., this Court was dealing the land pertaining to village Kolikopar, by its judgment dated 27 August, 2015 granted rate at Rs.1,380/- per sq.mtr.
(e) Division Bench of Bombay High Court while dealing with the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Vitthal Shankar Gharat - First Appeal No. 1360 of 2013 with Cross Objection (St) No. 10147 of 2017 dealing with the land of the village Donagri, Post Bokadvila, granted rate of Rs.200/- per sq.mtr. alongwith statutory benefits. ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 50/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc
(f) Supreme Court in the judgment of State of Maharashtra vs. Parvatibai Shankar Kini - Civil Appeal No. 6901-6902 of 2018 alongwith group of matters dealing with the land pertaining to village Wadghar and Bokadvila remitted the matter back to the High Court.
(g) Similarly in the case of Single Bench of this Court in case of State of Maharashtra vs. Anabai Bhaskar Patil , while dealing with the land of village Bokadvila, granted a rate of Rs.1,725/- per sq.mtr. alongwith statutory benefits.
(h) Against the decision of Bombay High Court, the applicant Anabai Bhaskar Patil moved to the Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal No. 7125 - 7126 of 2018. The said matter is still pending for hearing.
13. Market Rate Comparison - 1986 Notification Hence, as far as Notification U/s. 4 of the Act, dated 24 th September 1986 is concerned, following are the relevant matters in which the market rate needs to be considered :-
Sr. Village Market value Bombay High Court Supreme Court No. granted per sq.mtr.
1. Roadpali Rs.1,725/- Trimbak Joma Thakur vs. SLP (C)No. State of Maharashtra, Division 21331-21370 Bench considered 2 lease of 2009 instances and on the basis of CIDCO by Rs.25/- fixed for notification Order dated of 1970, fixed Rs.1,725/- per 10 March, ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 51/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc sq.mtr. by judgment dated 21 2015 June, 2007. dismissed.
2. Wadghar Rs.1,725/- State vs. Shankar Gulave, FA/1310/2005 a/w group of ___________ matters order dated 2 July 2015.
3. Bambavi Rs.620/- State vs. Changa Kana SLP No. Thakur, FA/403/2001, 13455/2016, considering village Bambavi filed by the is adjacent to village Ulwe, Claimant, by wherein the rate is fixed @ Order dated Rs.12/- per sq.mtr. of 25 July 2016 notification 3 February 1970. the SLP was For Village Roadpali and dismissed as Wadghar the rate fixed was the Supreme Rs.25/- for the notification of Court found no 4 Feb 1970 which increased to merits.
Rs.1725/- per sq.mtr. as on 24 September 1986. Hence, for village Bambavi for notification as on 3 February 1970 the rate fixed @ Rs.12/-.
Therefore, considering the
rate of village Roadpali and
Wadghar the rate will be
Rs.828/- per sq.mtrs.
considering the land is
landlocked, 25% deduction
the rate would be Rs.620/- per
sq.mtr.
4. Kolikopar Rs.1,380/- State of Maharashtra vs. SLP pending
Nakul Patil in FA/112/2009.
5. Bokadvila Rs.1,725/- State of Maharashtra Vs. SLP pending
Anabai Bhaskar Patil
(i) Mr. Kulkarni has referred to large number of authorities to
substantiate his contention on general principles of calculating market rate. Few of those authorities are already discussed in earlier paragraphs. The remaining authorities referred by Mr.Kulkarni are ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 52/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc discussed hereinbelow :-
(a) Mr. Kulkarni referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Shaji Kuriakose & Anr. vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors.
reported in (2001) 7 SCC 650. In my view the ratio laid down in the judgment will not be applicable to the present proceedings since it has been held in the said judgment that in case of dis-similarity in respect of locality, shape, size and nature of the land between the land covered by sale and the land acquired, court can proportionality reduce the value of the land acquired. Therefore, the said findings would have no bearing to the present proceedings.
(b) In C.R.Nagaraja Shetty vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Estate Officer, reported in (2009) 11 SCC 75, the said judgment refers to the enhancement of compensation wherein while deducting development charges the High Court had not discussed the reason for such deduction nor had the High Court relied upon any piece of evidence for that purpose, therefore without any positive evidence, the High Court was not justified in deducting the development charges.
(c) As far as the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Manohar vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1519, the Court held that while granting compensation on the ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 53/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc basis of the highest exemplar sale deed which showed market value of Rs.72,900/-per acre for deduction of 20% was appropriate. This judgment will have no relevance in the findings recorded.
(d) As far as the judgment of Trishila Jain vs. State of Uttaranchal reported in AIR 2011 SC 2458 is concerned, the same referred to the belting system. The Court granted market value on the date of issuance of Section 4 (1) of the Act deducting 10% therefrom considering the surrounding development area and location and potential of the land. Again in my view the judgment would have no bearing on the present proceedings.
(e) As far as the judgment of Mehta Ravindra Rai Ajit Rai vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1989 SC 2051 is concerned, same pertaining to sale deed being produced on record. Hence, the same would not be applicable to the present proceedings.
(f) As far as the judgment of Single Judge in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer No.3, Mumbai and Jayantilal P. Shah (Claimant) and Deputy General Manager, MTNL, Acquiring Body a Court has only laid down certain guidelines to calculate the market rate.
(ii) In my opinion, the ratio laid down in these authorities are not helpful to the cause canvassed by Mr. Kulkarni.
::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 54/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc [E] Conclusion (i) This Court while granting compensation, has granted the
rate of Rs.1,725/- per sq. mtr. to near-by villages. In the present proceedings also, according to me Rs. 1,725/- per sq. mtr. would be the appropriate rate to be applied. No doubt the reference Court while dealing with this issue has referred to the judgment of Trimbak Thakur (supra) and Ashok Wani (supra) but however the Court held that the land under acquisition is 160 meters away from the land acquired in Trimbak Thakur (supra) case and therefore from Rs.1,725/- per sq.mtr. the rate came down to Rs.1,500/- per sq.mtr. According to me, method applied by the learned District Court is not the correct method and the rate of Rs.1,725/- per sq.mtr. is a correct rate on which the compensation should be granted.
(iii) Hence, the First Appeal filed by the State stands dismissed and the Cross Objections filed by the claimant succeeds with the enhancement compensation granted @ Rs.1,725/- per sq.mtr. The claimant will also entitled to the statutory benefits including interest. Hence, the proceedings stands disposed of with following directions :-
(i) First Appeal No 714 of 2018 stands dismissed and Cross Objection (St) No. 31025 Of 2025 is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 ::: KVM 55/55 FA 714 OF 2018.doc dated 31 October, 2014 is modified accordingly. The total market value of the acquired land is fixed at Rs.1,725/- per sq.mtr. (inclusive of market value offered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer).
(ii) In addition, the claimant will be entitled to the statutory benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
(iii) The exercise of determining the compensation payable as per the modified award shall be carried out by the Reference Court within a period of three months from the date, on which the writ of this judgment is received by the said Court.
(iv) Excess amount shall be deposited by the State Government within a period of three months from the date on compensation amount is determined by the Reference Court.
[RAJESH S. PATIL, J.] ::: Uploaded on - 22/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2026 01:51:08 :::