Bombay High Court
Murlidhar J.Bang(Decd)Lrs Gulabbai M ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 29 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:5095
906 FA NO. 469 OF 1999.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
906 FIRST APPEAL NO. 469 OF 1999
The Municipal Council,
Latur, Dist. Latur
through its Chief Officer ..Appellant
(Orig. Respondent No.2)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Latur
District Latur
2. Murlidhar S/o Jetmal Bang,
Deceased through his L.Rs.,
2-a Gulabbai W/o Murlidhar Bang,
Age: 69 years, Occ: Household,
R/o Barshi, Tq. Barshi, Dist. Solapur
2-b Ramabai W/o Satyanarayan Baheti,
Age: 40 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Beed
2-c Pushpabai W/o Vasantrao Chendkar,
Age: 38 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Barshi, Tq. Barshi, Dist. Solapur
2-d Lilabai W/o. Satyanarayan Mundada,
Age: 36 years, Occu: Household
R/o. Thane, Dist. Thane
2-e Kalabai W/o. Prakash Somani,
Age: 37 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Dhoki, Dist. Latur
3. Ramnarayan S/o Murlidhar Bang,
Since deceased through L.Rs.
1 of 12
(( 2 )) 906 FA NO. 469 OF 1999
3-a Shakuntlabai W/o. Ramnarayan Bang
Age: 65 years, Occu: Household,
R/o Barshi, Tq. Barshi, Dist. Solapur
3-b Deepak S/o Ramnarayan Bang
Age: 48 years, Occu: Service
3-c Mukund S/o Ramnarayan Bang
Age: 35 years, Occu: Service
R/o Barshi, Tq. Barshi, Dist. Solapur
3-d Suvarna Vijaykumar Lahoti
Age: 45 years, Occu: Household,
Tq. And Dist. Washim
3-e Jyoti W/o Dilipji Sabu,
Age: 42 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Parli Vaijnath, Dist. Beed
4. Kamlakishor S/o Murlidhar Bang,
Age: 26 years, Occu: Business,
R/o. Latur, at present Barshi
5. Satyanarayan S/o Murlidhar Bang
(Since deceased, through his L.Rs.)
5-a Sunil S/o Satyanarayan Bang
Age: 39 years, Occu: Business,
R/o. Old Station Road, Gorakshan Mandal
Barshi, Tq. Barshi, Dist. Solapur
5-b Kaushalyabai Wd/o Satyanarayan Bang
Age: 61 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. As above
5-c Nita W/o Rajesh Zanwar,
Age: 42 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Mahesh colony, Hill garden
Gokak, Tq. Gokak (Karnataka State) ..Respondents
...
2 of 12
(( 3 )) 906 FA NO. 469 OF 1999
Mr. A. D. Sonkawade holding for Mr. A. V. Hon, Advocate for
Appellant
Mr. S. B. Jadhav, AGP for Respondent/State
Mr. V. D. Gunale and Mr. D. R Jethliya, Advocate for Respondent
Nos.2b to 2e and 3
Mr. H. B. Nandgavale and Mr. Ashwin V. Sakolkar h/for Mr. V. G.
Sakolkar, Advocate for respondent Nos.2-a to 2-f and 3 to 5
...
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 7 OF 2026
1. Murlidhar S/o Jetmal Bang,
Deceased through his L.Rs.,
1-a Gulabbai W/o Murlidhar Bang,
Age: 69 years, Occ: Household,
R/o Barshi, Tq. Barshi, Dist. Solapur
1-b Ramabai W/o Satyanarayan Baheti,
Age: 40 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Beed
1-c Pushpabai W/o Vasantrao Chendkar,
Age: 38 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Barshi, Tq. Barshi, Dist. Solapur
1-d Lilabai W/o. Satyanarayan Mundada,
Age: 36 years, Occu: Household
R/o. Thane, Dist. Thane
1-e Kalabai W/o. Prakash Somani,
Age: 37 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Dhoki, Dist. Latur
2. Ramnarayan S/o Murlidhar Bang,
Since deceased through L.Rs.
2-a Shakuntlabai W/o. Ramnarayan Bang
Age: 65 years, Occu: Household,
R/o Barshi, Tq. Barshi, Dist. Solapur
2-b Deepak S/o Ramnarayan Bang
Age: 48 years, Occu: Service
3 of 12
(( 4 )) 906 FA NO. 469 OF 1999
2-c Mukund S/o Ramnarayan Bang
Age: 35 years, Occu: Service
R/o Barshi, Tq. Barshi, Dist. Solapur
2-d Suvarna Vijaykumar Lahoti
Age: 45 years, Occu: Household,
Tq. And Dist. Washim
2-e Jyoti W/o Dilipji Sabu,
Age: 42 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Parli Vaijnath, Dist. Beed
3. Kamlakishor S/o Murlidhar Bang,
Age: 26 years, Occu: Business,
R/o. Latur, at present Barshi
4. Satyanarayan S/o Murlidhar Bang
(Since deceased, through his L.Rs.)
4-a Sunil S/o Satyanarayan Bang
Age: 39 years, Occu: Business,
R/o. Old Station Road, Gorakshan Mandal
Barshi, Tq. Barshi, Dist. Solapur
4-b Kaushalyabai Wd/o Satyanarayan Bang
Age: 61 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. As above
4-c Nita W/o Rajesh Zanwar,
Age: 42 years, Occu: Household,
R/o. Mahesh colony, Hill garden
Gokak, Tq. Gokak (Karnataka State) ..Petitioners
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Latur
District Latur
2. The Municipal Council,
Latur, Dist. Latur
through its Chief Officer ..Respondents
4 of 12
(( 5 )) 906 FA NO. 469 OF 1999
...
Mr. V. D. Gunale and Mr. D. R Jethliya, Advocate for petitioner Nos.1b
to 1e and 2
Mr. H. B. Nandgavale and Mr. Ashwin V. Sakolkar h/for Mr. V. G.
Sakolkar, Advocate for petitioner Nos.1-a to 1-f and 2 to 4
Mr. S. B. Jadhav, AGP for Respondent/State
Mr. A. D. Sonkawade holding for Mr. A. V. Hon, Advocate for
respondent No.2
....
CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 29.01.2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. This appeal and Cross-Objection are preferred against the judgment and award dated 05.03.1999 passed by the learned Land Reference Court, Latur District Latur in Land Acquisition Reference No.232 of 1987.
2. Mr. A. D. Sonkawade, learned advocate for the appellant in First Appeal No.469 of 1999 and for respondent No.2 in Cross- Objection No.7 of 2026 pointed out that the land situated at Latur City, District Latur, bearing City Survey No.6398, Municipal No.9, admeasuring 7002 sq. ft., was acquired for the purpose of construction of Shopping complex under the notification published under Section 4 dated 23.03.1982. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as the S.L.A.O.) passed an award on 23.09.1986 and awarded compensation @ Rs.11.61/- per sq. ft. The 5 of 12 (( 6 )) 906 FA NO. 469 OF 1999 reference was preferred against the award of the S.L.A.O, and the learned Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation and awarded Rs.85/- per sq. ft. Both the sides have preferred the appeal and cross-objection for reduction and enhancement of amount of compensation respectively.
3. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court is exorbitant and unsustainable. The learned Reference Court relied upon the sale exemplar at Exhibit-111 as well as the valuation report at Exhibit-32 and by applying incorrect method for determining compensation, awarded an exorbitant amount of compensation. He submitted that the learned Reference Court failed to make any deduction on account of the large area of the acquired land without considering that the sale exemplar at Exhibit-111 related to constructed property. He further submitted that the evidence of the witnesses was not properly appreciated and the other sale exemplars on record were not considered. He, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal be setting aside the impugned judgment and award. In support of his submissions he relied upon the following authorities.
6 of 12
(( 7 )) 906 FA NO. 469 OF 1999
a. Special Deputy Collector and Another Vs. Kurra Sambasiva
and Others, Reported in (1997) 6 SCC 41, wherein it is held that burden to prove market value of the acquired land is on the claimant guess work is permissible but mechanical assessment of evidence should be avoided.
b. V. Subrahmanya Rao Vs. Land Acquisition Zone Officer, reported in (2004) 10 SCC 640, wherein it is held that best evidence would be transaction of sale of the claimant himself and if it is not available then transactions of other in vicinity. c. Mala and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, (2023) 9 SCC 315, wherein it is held that there shall be appropriate 1/3 deduction of development charges.
4. Learned advocates for the cross-objectors, Mr. V. D. Gunale, Mr. D. R Jethliya, Mr. H. B. Nandgavale and Mr. Ashwin V. Sakolkar holding for Mr. V. G. Sakolkar, submitted that the learned Reference Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. The sale exemplar at Exhibit-111 which reflects the highest price and pertains to three years prior transaction of the acquisition process. It is most reliable piece of evidence, was not relied upon. They further submitted that the claimants' property is situated in the heart of Latur 7 of 12 (( 8 )) 906 FA NO. 469 OF 1999 city and has commercial as well as non-agricultural Potential. The land consists of city survey plots. The acquired land and the land covered under the sale exemplar at Exhibit-111 are situated in the one and the same area and are similarly situated. The claimants' property was commercial in nature and a DAL MILL was thereon, as observed in the award of Land Acquisition Officer itself. They submitted to consider said crucial fact. They pointed out paragraph Nos.80 and 85 of the impugned judgment and submitted that the learned Reference Court has not determined the compensation as per the settled legal norms and on the contrary, on its own awarded compensation @ Rs.85/- per sq. ft., which is meager and not justifiable either in law or on facts. They prayed to dismiss the appeal and allow the cross-objection by setting aside the impugned judgment and award and to award enhanced amount of compensation. Learned advocates for the claimants in support of their submissions relied upon the following authorities.
a. Barla Ram Reddy Vs. State of Telangana, 2025 SCC Online 878, wherein 20% compounding escalation per year was awarded. b. Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd) Vs. State of Punjab and Others, reported in AIR 2012 SC 2721, wherein it is held that the highest sale exemplar should be adopted for determining the market 8 of 12 (( 9 )) 906 FA NO. 469 OF 1999 value rather than averaging multiple sale instances.
5. Nobody will dispute the ratio laid down in the authorities cited by both the sides. However, each case has to be decided on its own merit.
6. Perused the record and proceedings, particularly the pleadings, the evidence, the grounds of objections raised in the appeal and Cross-Objections and the reasons and findings in the impugned judgment.
7. On perusal of the sale exemplar at Exhibit-111, it is clear that a shop admeasuring 360 sq. ft. bearing city survey No.6187, was sold under a sale exemplar dated 03.05.1979 for a consideration of Rs.49,000/- i.e., Rs.136/- per sq. ft. This is the sale exemplar showing the highest price in that area. The acquired property and the property sold under the sale exemplar Exhibit-111 are situated in the one and same locality and are similar in nature, being city survey properties located in the heart of Latur city. The claimants' property abuts the road and has commercial potential. The only difference is in the area, as the claimants' land admeasures 7002 sq. ft., whereas the property under sale exemplar Exhibit-111 admeasures 360 sq. ft.
9 of 12
(( 10 )) 906 FA NO. 469 OF 1999
Therefore, a 20% of deduction of amount would be proper in the sale exemplar Exhibit-111. After deduction, the market value comes to Rs.108/- per sq. ft.
8. This Court in Murlidhar S/o Dasrao Bokil Vs. The State of Maharashtra, decided in First Appeal No.2129 of 2018 on 16.02.2024 has held that for urban properties, escalation @ 15% of determined value of the said property is required to be granted. Since both the acquired property and the property sold under the sale exemplar at Exhibit-111 are situated in the heart of Latur city, having commercial nature, the claimants are entitled for 15% escalation for three years i.e., from the date of sale exemplar Exhibit-111 03.05.1979 till the date of notification 23.03.1982. After deducting 20%, rate comes to Rs.108/- per sq. ft. A 15% escalation for the first year comes to Rs.16.20, total Rs.124.20 per sq. ft. for the second year, it comes to Rs.18.63, total Rs.140.83 per sq. ft. for the third year Rs.21.42, total Rs.164.25 per sq. ft., which is rounded off to Rs.164/- per sq. ft. is market value of the acquired land. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to enhanced amount of compensation @ Rs.164/- per sq. ft. for their acquired land admeasuring 7002 sq. ft., which includes earlier compensation received by them.
10 of 12
(( 11 )) 906 FA NO. 469 OF 1999
9. Upon considering the grounds of objections raised in the appeal as well as in the cross-objection and on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the view that there is no substance in the grounds of objection raised in the appeal. For the reasons discussed above, the case law (supra) submitted by the appellant is not helpful to him. The appeal deserves to be dismissed. However, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the cross-objection deserves to be allowed by enhancing the amount of compensation @ Rs.164 per sq. ft. The impugned judgment and award deserve to be partly set aside. Hence, the following order:
::ORDER::
I. The First Appeal is dismissed. The Cross-Objection is allowed.
II. The impugned judgments and awards are partly set aside and modified as under:
(a) The claimants-Cross-objectors are entitled to compensation @ Rs.164/- per sq. ft for their acquired land, including the earlier compensation awarded and received by them , along with all statutory benefits like additional component, interest and solatium etc., as per the Provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
11 of 12 (( 12 )) 906 FA NO. 469 OF 1999 III. It is clarified that the claimants are not entitled to the interest and other statutory benefits for the period of delay, if any condoned by this Court.
IV. The respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation with accrued interest thereon along with all statutory benefits like interest, component and solatium etc., within six (06) months.
V. If the court fee is not paid for enhanced amount, the claimants shall pay deficit court fee. On receiving the same, the enhanced amount of compensation be paid to the claimants.
VI. Award be drawn up accordingly. VII. Out of the amount deposited in this Court, the claimants
have withdrawn some amount. The Registry is directed to pay the remaining amount along with accrued interest thereon to the claimants.
VIII. Pending civil applications, if any, are disposed of.
IX. Record and Proceedings be sent back.
[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]
HRJadhav
12 of 12