Bhima Sundarbalhau Surawase vs The State Of Maharashtra

These appeals are preferred against the common judgments and awards passed in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.273 of 1988, 276 of 1988, 272 of 1988, 274 of 1988 and 163 of 1988, dated 25.04.1989 by the learned land Reference Court at Beed. The claim of the claimants was partly allowed by the learned Reference Court.

According to the claimants, a reasonable amount of compensation was not awarded as per the market value of their acquired lands, therefore, they prayed for enhancement of compensation in these appeals.

During the argument, the learned Advocate Mr. G. K. Thigle for the appellant pointed out the impugned judgment, particularly paragraph no.17, in which the sale instances are stated in tabular form, which reads as follows:

Learned Advocate for the appellants pointed out that the sale instance of 21.01.1983 executed prior to the acquisition of the lands of these claimants. The said sale instance shows that Rs.818/-per Are was the price of the irrigated land. He submitted that even if it is assumed that the lands of the claimants/appellants are non irrigated lands, half of the rate i.e. Rs.409/- per Are can be awarded as compensation for the acquired agricultural lands of the appellants. He relied upon the judgment of Manohar and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, reported in 2025 INSC 900, in which it is held that the sale instance of the highest rate must be considered and relied upon.

Learned AGP Mr. Virendra V. Jahagirdar for the respondent-State strongly opposed the appeals and submitted that a reasonable amount of compensation was awarded by the learned Reference Court. The reasons and findings of the learned Reference Court are legal and correct. It has considered all the sale instances in their proper perspective and awarded a reasonable amount of compensation to the claimants. He submitted to dismiss the appeals.

Perused the Record and Proceedings, particularly the three sale instances. The first sale instance of the agricultural land dated 21.01.1983 shows that the 11R land having an irrigation facility through a well was sold for Rs.9000/- i.e. Rs.818 per Are of the village Pargaon Jogeshwari. The lands of the claimants situated at Borgaon Jogeshwari, District Beed are admittedly acquired for the construction of a percolation tank at Pargaon. Considering the other two sale instances, the sale instance dated 21.01.1983 is at a higher rate as pointed out by the learned Advocate for the appellants with reference to the case of Manohar supra.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of these appeals, this Court is of the view that the reasons and findings given by the learned Reference Court are not legal and correct. It requires interference as it fails to award a reasonable market price for the acquired lands of the appellants/claimants in view of the sale instance dated 21.01.1983. The claimants’ appeals therefore deserve to be allowed by partly setting aside the impugned judgments and awards. Hence, the following order: