Bombay High Court
Mohammad Wahiduddin Mohd. Yasin (Died) … vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 25 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:8445-DB
*1* fa85o19 GROUP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 85 OF 2019
1) MOHAMMAD WAHIDUDDIN MOHD. YASIN.
Since deceased through L.Rs.:-
1-A) Mohd. Adnan S/o. Ahemuddin,
Age: 42 Years, Occu. Business,
R/o. Mominpura, Aurangabad
2) Mohammad Saiduddin, S/o Mohammad Yasin,
Deceased through L.rs.
2-A) Wasim Sultana Mohammed Saiduddin
Age: 68 years, Occ.: Household,
R/o. House No.3-5-132, Manzurpura, Aurangabad.
2-B) Mohammed Haseebuddin Mohammed Saiduddin
Age: 47 years, Occ.: Business,
R/o. House No. 3-5-132, Manzurpura, Aurangabad.
2-C) Mohammed Nadimuddin Mohammed Saiduddin
Age: 42 years, Occ.: Business,
R/o. House No. 3-5-132, Manzurpura, Aurangabad.
2-D) Mohammed Tehminuddin Mohammed Saiduddin
Age: 38 years, Occ.: Business,
R/o. House No. 3-5-132, Manzurpura, Aurangabad.
2-E) Saba Nazneen Mohammed Saiduddin
Age: 42 years, Occ.: Household,
R/o. House No.3-5-132, Manzurpura, Aurangabad.
2-F) Tayyaba Nazneen Shaikh Zubair
Age: 34 years, Occ.: Household
R/o. House No.8-8-555, Rashidpura, Aurangabad.
(Amendment carried out as per order
*2* fa85o19 GROUP
dt.26.09.2025 passed by this Hon'ble Court
in Civil Application No.31 of 2025)
3) Mohd. Ahmeduddin S/o. Mohd. Yasin,
Age: 75 years, Occu: Business,
R/o. As above.
...APPELLANTS
(Orig.Claimants)
VERSUS
1) THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA.
Through the Collector, Aurangabad.
2) City and Industrial Development
Corporation Ltd.,
Through its Administrator,
Udyog Bhavan, CIDCO, Aurangabad
...RESPONDENTS
(Orig. Respondents)
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 907 OF 2019
CIDCO Aurangabad
through its Administrator,
Udyog Bhavan, CIDCO Aurangabad.
...APPELLANT
(Orig.Resp.No. 2)
VERSUS
1. Imtiyaz Khan S/o Sardar Khan,
Minor u/g of ZakiyaBanu W/0
Sardar Khan,
Age: 40 Yrs, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o Manjoorpura, Aurangabad.
2. State of Maharashtra,
Through The Collector,
*3* fa85o19 GROUP
Aurangabad.
...RESPONDENTS
(Resp. No. 1 Orig. Claimant
Resp. No. 2 Orig. Resp. No.1)
...
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8309 OF 2019
IN FA/907/2019
(For leading additional evidence)
CIDCO AURANGABAD THR ITS ADMINISTRATOR,
AURANGABAD
VERSUS
IMTIYAZ KHAN SARDAR KHAN MINOR U/G OF
ZAKIYABANU W/O SARDAR KHAN AND ANR
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 908 OF 2019
CIDCO AURANGABAD
THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATOR,
AURANGABAD.
...APPELLANT
(Orig. Resp. No.2)
VERSUS
1. MOHAMMED WAHIDUDDIN S/O MOH.
(DIED THR LRS)
1-a) Mohd. Adnan S/o. Ahmeduddin,
Age: 18 Years, Occu. Student,
R/o. Mominpura, Aurangabad
2) Mohammad Saiduddin, S/o Mohammad Yasin,
Deceased through L.rs.
*4* fa85o19 GROUP
2-A) Wasim Sultana Mohammed Saiduddin
Age: 68 years, Occ.: Household,
R/o. House No.3-5-132, Manzurpura, Aurangabad.
2-B) Mohammed Haseebuddin Mohammed Saiduddin
Age: 47 years, Occ.: Business,
R/o. House No. 3-5-132, Manzurpura, Aurangabad.
2-C) Mohammed Nadimuddin Mohammed Saiduddin
Age: 42 years, Occ.: Business,
R/o. House No. 3-5-132, Manzurpura, Aurangabad.
2-D) Mohammed Tehminuddin Mohammed Saiduddin
Age: 38 years, Occ.: Business,
R/o. House No. 3-5-132, Manzurpura, Aurangabad.
2-E) Saba Nazneen Mohammed Saiduddin
Age: 42 years, Occ.: Household,
R/o. House No.3-5-132, Manzurpura, Aurangabad.
2-F) Tayyaba Nazneen Shaikh Zubair
Age: 34 years, Occ.: Household
R/o. House No.8-8-555, Rashidpura, Aurangabad.
3) Mohd. Ahmeduddin S/o. Mohd. Yasin,
Age: 50 years,
Occu and R/o. As above.
4) State of Maharashtra.
Through the Collector,
Aurangabad.
...RESPONDENTS
(Nos.1 to 3 : Orig. Claimants
No.4 : Orig. Resp. No.1)
...
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3747 OF 2019
IN FA/908/2019
(For staying the impugned award)
*5* fa85o19 GROUP
CIDCO AURANGABAD THR ITS ADMINISTRATOR,
AURANGABAD
VERSUS
MOHAMMED WAHIDUDDIN S/O MOH. (DIED) THR LRS
MOHD. ADNAN S/O AHMEDUDDIN AND ORS
...
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8333 OF 2019
IN FA/908/2019
(For leading additional evidence)
CIDCO AURANGABAD THR ITS ADMINISTRATOR,
AURANGABAD
VERSUS
MOHAMMED WAHIDUDDIN S/O MOH. (DIED) THR LRS
MOHD. ADNAN S/O AHMEDUDDIN AND ORS
...
Shri Anand P. Bhandari a/w Shri Anil P. Malani, Advocates for
the claimants.
Mrs. Jayashri P. Reddy, AGP for the State of Maharashtra.
Shri Shambhuraje V. Deshmukh, Advocate for the acquiring
body/ CIDCO.
...
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT
&
SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, JJ.
Reserved on : 10 February 2026
Pronounced on : 25 February 2026
JUDGMENT (Per Sushil M. Ghodeswar, J.) :
–
1. Heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties.
*6* fa85o19 GROUP
2. Since these First Appeals arise out of the same
award dated 21.12.1992 passed by the Special Acquisition
Officer in File No.LAQ/SU/III of 1992-93 and identical
judgments and awards dated 16.11.2018 delivered by the
Reference Court (learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Aurangabad) in L.A.R. No.215/1997 (Old LAR No.188/1993)
and L.A.R. No.162/1997 (old LAR No.189/1993), hence, they
are being decided by this common judgment. Details of the
proceedings are as under:-
Sr.No. First Appeal No. Filed by LAR No. Impugned
award dt.
1. 85/2019 Claimants for 215/1997 16.11.2018
enhancement (Old LAR
No.188/1993)
2. 908/2019 Acquiring 215/1997 16.11.2018
body/ CIDCO (Old LAR
No.188/1993)
3. 907/2019 Acquiring 162/1997 16.11.2018
body/ CIDCO
(Old LAR
No.189/1993)
3. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to by
their nomenclature in the LAR proceedings.
*7* fa85o19 GROUP
4. It is stated that the acquired lands are from Gat
Nos.125 and 127 situated at village Satara, Taluka and District
Aurangabad. The notification under Section 126(4) of the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, was issued
on 16.12.1990, which is equivalent to the notification under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for acquisition of
the lands of the claimants for the purpose of planned
development of city of Aurangabad. After completion of all
formalities, the final award came to be passed by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer on 21.12.1992.
5. However, it is the contention of the claimants that
the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer was meager and therefore, they have filed the above LAR
proceedings before the Reference Court. The Reference Court
vide the impugned judgment and award dated 16.11.2018
enhanced the compensation to the tune of Rs.500/- per sq. mtr..
Operative orders of the learned Reference Court read thus:-
In LAR No.215/1997:-
“ORDER
1) Reference Petition is allowed with cost.
*8* fa85o19 GROUP 2) The respondents shall pay enhanced compensation
to the tune of Rs.500/-per Sq.Mtr. to claimants for
their 70% acquired land i.e. 80,360 Sq.Mtr. after
deducting the compensation already paid by
S.L.A.O.
3) The respondents shall pay 30% solatium to
claimants on enhanced amount as per section 23(2)
of the Land Acquisition Act.
4) The respondents shall pay 12% additional increase
to the claimants from the date of notification u/s. 4
of the Act till the date of award on enhanced
compensation as per section 23(1-a) of the Land
Acquisition Act.
5) The respondents shall pay to claimants an interest
@ 9% Per annum for one year from the date of
notification u/s. 4 and, thereafter, @ 15% Per
annum till realization of entire enhanced
compensation.
6) Deficit court fees, if any, be recovered from the
claimants.
7) Formulate the award accordingly."
In LAR No.162/1997:-
"ORDER
1) Reference Petition is allowed with cost.
2) The respondents shall pay enhanced compensation
to the tune of Rs.500/-per Sq.Mtr to claimant for
his 70% acquired land i.e. 13720 Sq.Mtr. after
deducting the compensation already paid by
S.L.A.O.
3) The respondents shall pay 30% solatium to
claimant on enhanced amount as per section 23(2)
*9* fa85o19 GROUPof the Land Acquisition Act.
4) The respondents shall pay 12% additional increase
to the claimant from the date of notification u/s. 4
of the Act till the date of award on enhanced
compensation as per section 23(1-a) of the Land
Acquisition Act.
5) The respondents shall pay to claimant an interest
@9% Per annum for one year from the date of
notification u/s. 4 and, thereafter, @ 15% Per
annum till realization of entire enhanced
compensation.
6) Deficit court fees, if any, be recovered from the
claimants.
7) Formulate the award accordingly.”
6. Being aggrieved by these judgment and awards
dated 16.11.2018, the claimants have filed First Appeal
No.85/2019 for enhancement of compensation, whereas, the
acquiring body/ CIDCO filed the two First Appeal Nos.907/2019
and 908/2019 for quashing and setting aside the impugned
judgments and awards enhancing compensation.
7. During the course of hearing, the learned advocate
Shri Deshmukh appearing for the acquiring body/ CIDCO,
submitted that the learned Reference Court has committed grave
error while enhancing compensation. The learned Reference
*10* fa85o19 GROUPCourt has erroneously relied upon the judgment dated 03.08.2000
passed in LAR No.861/1997, 862/1997 and 863/1997. According
to the learned advocate, the learned Reference Court ought to
have seen that the acquired lands in the said judgment dated
03.08.2000 were neither identical nor adjacent to each other. The
lands acquired in the present matter and the lands acquired in the
judgment dated 03.08.2000 were acquired by different
notifications, therefore, same ratio cannot be applied. The learned
Reference Court in fact relied upon the judgment which was
pertaining to the developed lands from village Garkheda,
however, in the matter in hand, the acquired lands are from
village Satara. Shri Deshmukh submitted that the adjoining lands
to the acquired lands from village Garkheda were already
developed prior to issuance of the notification in the case of
judgment dated 03.08.2000. Shri Deshmukh also submitted that
the rates of leasehold plots declared by the acquiring body/
CIDCO for the developed area, cannot be the basis for
determining the valuation of the acquired lands in the present
matter.
8. The learned advocate Shri Deshmukh further
*11* fa85o19 GROUP
submitted that the learned Reference Court has committed
mistake by considering sale instances which were not filed by the
claimants and thus, has committed further error by relying on the
judgment in respect of another land which has no semblance to
the land in question. In this regard, Deshmukh has invited
attention of this Court to Civil Application Nos.8309/2019 and
8333/2019, which are filed for leading additional evidence in the
shape of certified copies of the registered sale deeds and prayed
for exhibiting and reading those documents in evidence as
contemplated under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure
Code, 1908. According to him, there are various sale deeds
pertaining to the lands from villages Satara and Garkheda and the
said transactions took place prior to the issuance of notification
under Section 126(4) of the MRTP Act. Shri Deshmukh heavily
relied upon the said sale instances to submit that adjacent lands
situated at village Satara were acquired vide earlier notification
dated 01.01.1987 and award dated 14.12.1988 and those
claimants had preferred the reference proceedings before the
Reference Court, which were allowed. Thereafter, the claimants
as well as the acquiring body filed the First Appeals before this
Court. Vide the judgment dated 11.07.2003 delivered by this
*12* fa85o19 GROUP
Court, the said First Appeals were decided and the rate of
Rs.1,20,000/- per hector was confirmed. The judgment dated
11.07.2003 is confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus,
according to Shri Deshmukh, the judgment dated 11.07.2003
delivered by this Court would be the basis for determining the
market valuation in the present matter because the said lands are
from same village.
9. Shri Deshmukh further submitted that the learned
Reference Court has erroneously relied upon lease rate of
Rs.600/- per sq. mtr. declared by the acquiring body/ CIDCO for
the leasehold properties in developed area of Aurangabad City.
According to him, the said rate can be considered only after
taking into account the huge cost incurred for land acquisition,
development of layout, internal roads, development of amenity
and open spaces. Therefore, the rate granted by the learned
Reference Court while enhancing compensation in this case, is
exorbitant and high and as such, same cannot be taken into
consideration.
10. Shri Deshmukh further submitted that the learned
Reference Court ought to have considered that the award was
*13* fa85o19 GROUP
rightly passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on the
basis of prevailing market rates at the time of notification under
Section 126(4) of the MRTP Act and therefore, the same was just
and proper. However, the learned Reference Court has
erroneously enhanced the compensation, which the claimants are
not entitled to receive. The Reference Court has committed an
error in not considering evidence on record in proper perspective
and has wrongly enhanced compensation. Shri Deshmukh,
therefore, prayed for setting aside the judgments and orders
passed by the learned Reference Court.
11. In support of his above submissions, the learned
advocate Shri Deshmukh has relied upon several judgments of
this Court as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He specifically
relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lal
Chand vs. Union of India and another, (2009) 15 SCC 769, to
submit that the deductions for development charges are upto
75%. The learned advocate Shri Deshmukh also relied upon the
judgment of this Court in Sahebrao Bhausaheb Kalate vs. State
of Maharashtra and others (2020 (2) Mh.L.J. 210) and the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Oil
*14* fa85o19 GROUP
and Natural Gas Corporation Limited vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai
Patel and another, (2008) 14 SCC 745, to submit that post
notification sale deeds cannot be considered. He also relied upon
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kanwar Singh vs.
Union of India, AIR 1999 SC 317, to submit that the
compensation awarded to the claimants from adjoining village,
cannot be relied upon.
12. On the other hand, the learned advocate Shri
Bhandari appearing for the claimants submitted that the
notification under Section 126(4) was issued on 16.12.1990 and
the award by the Special Land Acquisition Officer came to be
passed on 21.12.1992. By virtue of the said award, the
compensation came to be granted at the rate of Rs.22.50 per
square meter i.e. Rs.2,25,000/- per hector. The claimants filed the
reference claiming enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.600/-
per square meter along with statutory benefits. However, the
learned Reference Court has erroneously granted the rate of
Rs.500/- per square meter. According to the learned advocate
Shri Bhandari, voluminous documents were produced before the
Reference Court in the form of sale instances of the years 1991
*15* fa85o19 GROUP
and 2010 wherein the rates were shown at around Rs.287/- in
1991 and Rs.3785/- per square meter in 2010. The rate list of
CIDCO for the year 1991 and 1992 was also produced before the
Reference Court wherein, the rates were shown as Rs.600/- per
square meter. The lease deed executed by the CIDCO in 2010 for
the period 60 years disclosed the rate at Rs.3785/- per square
meter. The list of awards delivered in LAR Nos.861/1997,
862/1997 and 863/1997 were also produced on record to show
that enhanced compensation of Rs.600/- per square meter was
granted by deducting 30% development charges. By relying on
these documents, Shri Bhandari submitted that the Reference
Court ought to have enhanced compensation.
13. Shri Bhandari invited attention of this Court to
exhibit 50 which is the sanctioned plan by the Government of
Maharashtra in respect of the property acquired by the CIDCO,
to submit that the CIDCO utilized 100% land for development.
Shri Bhandari also invited attention of this Court to the maps to
point out that the land which has been acquired by the CIDCO in
village Garkheda is adjoining to the north side of acquired land in
Gat Nos.125, 126/1 and 127 of village Satara. Shri Bhandari
*16* fa85o19 GROUP
submitted that the learned Reference Court has granted
compensation of Rs.600/- per square meter in respect of the land
from village Garkheda where the notification was published on
05.12.1991. This judgment in respect of the lands at Garkheda
was assailed before this Court in First Appeal No.416/2000 and
this Court vide judgment dated 13.02.2018 decided the said First
Appeal and maintained the rate ordered by the Reference Court.
The judgment of this Court is also confirmed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and thus, the rate of Rs.600/- per square meter to
the lands acquired from village Garkheda was confirmed upto the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the Reference Court has
erroneously ignored this aspect in the present case.
14. In support of his submissions, Shri Bhandari has
relied upon several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and
this Court. He specifically relied upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special
Land Acquisition Officer, Poona and another, AIR 1988 SC 1652,
wherein, it is held that the market value of the land must be
determined as on crucial date of publication of notification. Shri
Bhandari has heavily relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
*17* fa85o19 GROUP
Supreme Court in Mehrawal Khewaji Trust Faridkot vs. State of
Punjab and others, AIR 2012 SC 2721, wherein it is held that
when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands,
it is the general rule that the highest of exemplars, if it is
bonafide transaction, has to be considered. Shri Bhandari further
relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Kasturi and others vs. State of Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 354 and
Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Hamid Mulla and others vs.
Special Land Acquisition Officer and others, (2012) 7 SCC 595,
to contend that the compensation has to be enhanced considering
potential value of the lands for housing or commercial purposes
and it being in the vicinity of developed area. Shri Bhandari has
also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Union of India vs. Raj Kumar Baghal Singh, (2014) 10 SCC 422 ,
to submit that sale instances of adjacent lands and proximate to
the date of acquisition, have to be considered. The learned
advocate for the claimants, therefore, prayed for enhancement of
compensation.
15. After considering the submissions of the learned
advocates for the respective parties and perusing with their
*18* fa85o19 GROUP
assistance the record, first of all we are required to see the
position of acquired lands in the maps. We have perused the map
at exhibit 62, village map of Satara at exhibit 63 and village map
of Garkheda at exhibit 64. On careful perusal of the said maps, it
is disclosed that the lands from village Satara, which are acquired
for the purpose of planned development of city are adjacent to
nearby village Garkheda. The acquired lands are situated on
northern side of railway track and are adjacent to railway track.
Some portion of village Satara is also situated towards northern
side of railway track and it is adjacent to village Garkheda.
16. In the present case, the learned Reference Court has
considered the rate of Rs.600/- per square meters, which was
finalized upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of the lands
acquired in developed area acquired by the CIDCO in village
Garkheda. Insofar as the lands acquired from village Garkheda
are concerned, the notification of acquisition was issued on
15.12.1992. Therefore, the learned Reference Court has granted
rate of Rs.600/- per square meter in those cases. In the case in
hand, the lands from adjacent village Satara are acquired under
notification issued on 16.12.1990. As such, the learned Reference
*19* fa85o19 GROUP
Court has rightly considered the fact that village Satara is very
adjacent to village Garkheda and their boundaries are common
and the lands from village Garkheda are acquired subsequent to
the land acquisition from village Satara. Therefore, the Reference
Court has rightly relied upon its earlier judgment dated
03.08.2000, which was upheld upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
and has rightly considered the said judgment dated 03.08.2000 as
determinative factor to determine the price of acquired lands in
the present matter.
17. The learned Reference Court has rightly relied upon
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ali Mohammad
Beigh vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 2017 SC 1518 ,
wherein it is held as under:-
“13. When the lands are more or less situated nearby
and when the acquired lands are identical and
similar and the acquisition is for the same purpose,
it would not be proper to discriminate between the
land owners unless there are strong reasons. In
Union of India v. Bal Ram and another (2010) 5
SCC 747, this Court held that if the purpose of
acquisition is same and when the lands are
identical and similar though lying in different
villages, there is no justification to make any
discrimination between the land owners to pay
more to some of the land owners and less
compensation to others. The same was the view
taken in Union of India v. Harinder Pal Singh
*20* fa85o19 GROUP(2005) 12 SCC 564, where this Court held as
under:–
“15. We have carefully considered the
submissions made on behalf of the respective
parties and we see no justification to interfere with
the decision of the Division Bench of the Punjab
and Haryana High Court which, in our view, took a
pragmatic approach in fixing the market value of
the lands forming the subject-matter of the
acquisition proceedings at a uniform rate. From the
sketch plan of the area in question, it appears to us
that while the lands in question are situated in five
different villages, they can be consolidated into
one single unit with little to choose between one
stretch of land and another. The entire area is in a
stage of development and the different villages are
capable of being developed in the same manner as
the lands comprised in Kala Ghanu Pur where the
market value of the acquired lands was fixed at a
uniform rate of Rs. 40,000 per acre. The Division
Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
discarded the belting method of valuation having
regard to the local circumstances and features and
no cogent ground has been made out to interfere
with the same.”
18. In view of the above position of law, the Reference
Court has rightly held that the lands situated nearby, identical and
similar in nature, cannot be discriminated by awarding lesser
compensation. After perusing the evidence in the form of maps
produced on record and the rate list of leasehold plots published
by the CIDCO for the year 1991 and 1992, the learned Reference
Court has rightly observed that villages Garkheda and Satara are
adjacent to each other, the lands acquired are identical to each
*21* fa85o19 GROUP
other and similar in nature and more importantly, these lands are
acquired for the same purpose of planned development of city.
While enhancing the compensation by the impugned judgment
and awards, the learned Reference Court has rightly considered
various factors in proper perspective such as road facility
available adjacent to acquired lands, developing area around
acquired lands and potentiality of development of acquired lands.
19. In the present case, though the learned Reference
Court has come to conclusion that the claimants are entitled to
get the rate of Rs.600/- per square meter by deducting 30% area
from the acquired lands towards wastage for road and open plots,
however, the learned Reference Court has rightly considered that
the claimants have claimed enhanced compensation to the tune of
Rs.500/- per square meters and therefore, it has rightly enhanced
the compensation to the tune of Rs.500/- per square meter by
deducting 30% area from the acquired lands. After considering
the evidence produced on record, the learned Reference Court
has rightly rejected the claim of the claimants towards well,
borewell and trees.
20. It is well settled that determination of market value
*22* fa85o19 GROUP
is primarily a question of fact based on appreciation of evidence
on record. The Reference Court, after evaluating the maps,
documentary evidence, prior awards in respect of adjacent village
Garkheda and the potentiality of the acquired lands, has arrived
at a reasoned conclusion. The acquiring body has failed to
demonstrate that the findings recorded by the Reference Court
are perverse, arbitrary or contrary to settled principles governing
determination of market value. In the absence of any material
showing material dissimilarity between the lands of village
Satara and village Garkheda, and particularly when both
acquisitions were for the same public purpose, the determination
of Rs.500/- per sq. mtr. cannot be said to be excessive or
unjustified.
21. It is also pertinent to note that the acquiring body/
CIDCO has not produced any evidence before the Reference
Court pointing out anything adverse. On the contrary, the
acquiring body/ CIDCO did not lead any evidence and filed the
evidence closed pursis exhibit 73. However, now the CIDCO has
filed Civil Application Nos.8309/2019 and 8333/2019 under
Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking
*23* fa85o19 GROUP
permission to produce additional evidence in the form of certified
copies of registered sale deeds pertaining to lands from villages
Satara and Garkheda, at the relevant time. Though it is true that
the acquiring body had closed its evidence before the Reference
Court, the documents sought to be produced are certified copies
of registered sale deeds and the same are public documents and
have a direct bearing on determination of market value. In land
acquisition matters, the Court is under statutory obligation to
determine just and fair compensation based on best available
evidence. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the additional
documents sought to be produced are necessary to enable the
Court to effectively adjudicate the issue of market value and to
pronounce judgment in just and proper manner. The production
of such documents would not prejudice the claimants, as they are
certified copies of registered instruments and relate to
comparable lands. So also, we are hearing these appeals finally, it
is necessary to peruse the said additional documents for decision
of these appeals. As such, Civil Application Nos. 8309/2019 and
8333/2019 are allowed. The documents annexed thereto are taken
on record and shall be read in evidence.
*24* fa85o19 GROUP
22. We have also perused the additional evidence
brought on record by the CIDCO. After perusing the entire
evidence brought on record, we find that boundaries of both
villages Satara and Garkheda are adjacent to each other and both
these villages are forming part of the Aurangabad Municipal
Corporation and the lands from these villages have been acquired
for the same purpose i.e. for planned development of city of
Aurangabad. The lands of both villages are identical and same in
nature. The rate awarded for the lands from adjacent village
Garkheda was at the rate of Rs.600/- per square meter whereas,
the rate awarded to the lands from village Satara is at the rate of
Rs.500/- per square meter. Thus, the rate determined by the
Reference Court appears to be reasonable and proper.
23. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the
acquiring body on the decision in Lal Chand v. Union of India
(supra) is misplaced in the facts of the present case. In the said
decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that deductions
towards development may range from 20% to 75% depending
upon the nature of the land, extent of development required and
surrounding circumstances. In the present case, the acquired
*25* fa85o19 GROUP
lands are situated adjacent to already developed areas, form part
of municipal limits and possess immediate potential for non-
agricultural use. The Reference Court has already deducted 30%
towards development, which cannot be said to be inadequate
considering the locational advantages and surrounding
infrastructure. Similarly, the decision in General Manager,
ONGC v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (supra) relating to post-
notification transactions does not advance the case of the
acquiring body, as the Reference Court has primarily relied upon
adjudicated awards of adjacent lands rather than isolated post-
notification transactions.
24. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds
no merit in the appeal preferred by the claimants seeking further
enhancement of compensation, as the rate determined by the
Reference Court is found to be just, reasonable and based on
proper appreciation of evidence. Likewise, the appeals filed by
the acquiring body challenging the enhancement also do not have
merit, since no perversity, illegality or material error is
demonstrated in the impugned judgments and awards.
Consequently, all the appeals, being devoid of substance, are
*26* fa85o19 GROUP
liable to be dismissed.
25. Hence, all three First Appeals are dismissed. The
pending Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed
of.
26. Record and proceedings be sent back to the
Reference Court.
kps (SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.) (KISHORE C. SANT, J.)
27. After pronouncement of this judgment, the learned
advocate Mr. Deshmukh appearing for the CIDCO, submits that
the operative order passed by this Court in the first appeals be
stayed for a period of four weeks.
28. The learned advocate Mr. Bhandari, appearing for
the claimants, opposes the said request.
29. Considering the above, the operative order passed by
this Court is hereby stayed for the period of four weeks from
today.
(SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.) (KISHORE C. SANT, J.)
