(Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.)
Civil Appeal No…………of 2026 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No. 34508 of 2025), decided on February 9, 2026
Maltibai Navnath Kulkarni _________________________ Appellant;
v.
State of Maharashtra and Another ________________ Respondent(s).
With
Civil Appeal No…………of 2026
(@Special Leave Petition (C) No………. of 2026)
(@Diary No. 59134 of 2025)
Civil Appeal No…………of 2026
(@Special Leave Petition (C) No………. of 2026)
(@Diary No. 59133 of 2025)
Civil Appeal No…………of 2026
(@Special Leave Petition (C) No………. of 2026)
(@Diary No. 59135 of 2025)
Civil Appeal No…………of 2026
(@Special Leave Petition (C) No. 35148 of 2025)
Civil Appeal No…………of 2026
(@Special Leave Petition (C) No. 36715 of 2025)
Civil Appeal No…………of 2026 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No. 34508 of 2025); Civil Appeal No…………of 2026 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No………. of 2026) (@Diary No. 59134 of 2025); Civil Appeal No…………of 2026 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No………. of 2026) (@Diary No. 59133 of 2025); Civil Appeal No…………of 2026 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No………. of 2026) (@Diary No. 59135 of 2025); Civil Appeal No…………of 2026 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No. 35148 of 2025); and Civil Appeal No…………of 2026 (@Special Leave Petition (C) No. 36715 of 2025)
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
Leave granted.
2. These six appeals arise from the common order of the High Court in six First Appeals, affirming the orders of the Reference Court in the Land Acquisition Reference1 cases. The claimants, the appellants herein seek enhancement of the compensation awarded. The enhancement is sought with respect to the land value adopted, compensation for loss of fruit bearing trees and for the constructions made in the land. The details of the land viz: the extent, the constructions therein and the survey numbers are available in a tabular form in the common judgment of the Reference Court. The Survey/Gut numbers, each LAR is concerned with, is as under:—
| Sr. No. | LAR No. | Survey/Gut No. |
| 1 | 823/2014 | 199 |
| 207 | ||
| 208 | ||
| 209 | ||
| 211 | ||
| 473 | ||
| 2 | 824/2014 | 206 |
| 204 | ||
| 3 | 825/2014 | 200 |
| 4 | 826/2014 | 162 |
| 5 | 827/2014 | 205 |
| 210 | ||
| 6 | 1747/2017 | 453 |
| 349 | ||
| 347 | ||
| 268 | ||
| 449 | ||
| 303 | ||
| 288 | ||
| 344 | ||
| 202 | ||
| 202 |
3. Of these, the land in Gut No. 199, 200 and 453 are irrigated lands which also contain fruit bearing trees and constructed well, pipelines etc.
4. The Reference Court adopted the land value at Rs. 2000/- for Jirayat lands and Rs. 3000/- for Bagayat lands which respectively means rain-fed and irrigated; the Bagayat lands having more value than the Jirayat lands. Insofar as the compensation for fruit bearing trees granted in the award of the Land Acquisition Officer (for short, the LAO) was confirmed. Insofar as the construction of well and pipelines it was found relying on the decision of this Court in O. Janardhan Reddy v. Special Deputy Collector, L.A. Unit IV2, that the construction cost of the wells cannot be separately estimated since the land value is assessed as irrigated lands, which value is also higher than those which are rain-fed or barren. Hence, it was found that the amounts awarded for well, pipelines etc. has to be deducted from the total compensation amount payable to the claimant in respect of the acquired lands in Gut No. 199, 200 and 453. In determining the land value, the Reference Court also relied on the decision in LAR No. 411 of 2015 in Annexure P-8 arising from the very same village; the identical acquisition.
5. The High Court confirmed the order of the Reference Court but modified the compensation only with respect to fruit bearing trees, applying the multiplier of 8 as per the decision in State of Haryana v. Gurcharan Singh3 and deducted 20% of the same relying on the decision in Chindha Fakira Patil (D) through LRs v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon4.
6. Mr. Shreyas Gacche, learned counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that the acquisition was of a small extent of property which is incomparable with the property considered in LAR No. 411 of 2015 having an extent of 1 hectare and 32 ares. Always, in acquisition the land value for smaller extents is fixed at a higher rate, especially considering the fact that the actual sale of the smaller extent would fetch much more than the sale of a larger extent. It was also pointed out that the Reference Court erroneously adopted a sale deed of 2003 while refusing to consider the sale deed of 2004 which was more proximate to the 2005 acquisition. It is also argued that there was expert evidence produced insofar as the value of the constructions and the anticipated income from the fruit bearing trees which was completely ignored in the award and also by the Reference Court and the High Court.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied on the decision in Manohar v. State of Maharashtra5 to contend that when there are several exemplars with reference to a smaller land, usually the highest of the exemplars would be considered.
8. Mr. Prashant R. Dahat learned counsel appearing for the State would argue that two of the lands have a larger extent, one comparable with LAR No. 411 of 2015 (Gut No. 200) and in the other the extent is much more (Gut No. 199). It is argued that the irrigated lands, as has been found in the cited decision, obtained a higher value only because of the constructions made therein which larger rates take in the value of the constructions made for irrigation purposes. It is also pointed out that the expert witnesses were not examined, and their credentials were also not proved by the witnesses examined in lieu of such experts, who were alleged to be no more. The inspection of the lands by the experts were without notice to the LAO.
9. The acquisition was for the purpose of a storage tank under the Satraportra Medium Project by a notification dated 27.07.2005. The acquisition was also from Kumbhari village and LAR No. 411 of 2015 was identical insofar as the village and the purpose of acquisition carried out as per notification dated 27.07.2005 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. As was pointed out by the State, the said reference case was with respect to acquisition of 1 hectare and 32 ares and therein it was found to be a Bagayat land entitled to Rs. 3000/- per are. We cannot but notice that even in the present appeals, Gut No. 199 is with respect to acquisition of 7 hectares and 18 ares and Gut No. 200 is with respect to 1 hectare and 86 ares which is comparable to the extent of the land acquired in LAR No. 411 of 2015. In such circumstances, we find absolutely no reason to interfere with the order of the Reference Court as affirmed by the High Court insofar as the land value with respect to Gut No. 199 and 200.
10. Insofar as the other lands, we notice that those are all small extents. Even the irrigated land in LAR 147 of 2017 is a small extent. The sale deeds produced before the Reference Court are referred to in the judgment as Exhibits 44 and 45, which respectively bear the dates 24.06.2003 and 27.01.2004. The notification under Section 4 being of the date 27.07.2005, definitely the more proximate sale deed is of 27.01.2004 which is also of a small extent of .07 hectares. The price per ares in the said sale deed is shown as Rs. 2857/-. Since the acquisition was almost six months after the date shown in the sale deed there can be an enhancement of 5.5% which would also put the value at Rs. 3000/- as has been found in the award applicable to the Jirayat lands. Hence, while the Bagayat land for a larger extent is granted Rs. 3000/-, the Jirayat land with a considerable lesser extent could be awarded the land value at Rs. 3000/- per are comparable to the sale deed produced at Exhibit 45. The land value, hence, for the larger extent would be at Rs. 3000/- per are being a Bagayat land and though Jirayat lands, for the smaller extent also it will be at Rs. 3000/- per are.
11. The Bagayat land in Gut No. 453 having a smaller extent comprised in LAR 1747 of 2017 would be entitled to a higher value of Rs. 4,000/- per are. It is also made clear that the compensation granted for house and borewell in Gut No. 453 would be preserved as initially awarded at Rs. 24,741/- and Rs. 13,577/- since it is a residential property with fruit bearing trees, making it an irrigated land too. Likewise, the compensation of Rs. 22,211/- granted to the house and Gotha in Gut No. 204 (LAR 824/2014) will also be preserved.
12. We cannot accede to the arguments raised with respect to the expert opinions. Annexures P-3 to P-5 are said to be expert reports by a Horticulturist by name Mr. V.M. Ghogre. Since the said expert was no more, PW-2 his son was examined, who was an Advocate. He merely stated that his father was engaged in the business of agricultural land valuation but produced nothing to indicate his credentials. However, the signature on the report was proved by the said witness whose deposition is produced as Annexure P-9. We also notice that one other witness was examined and his deposition is produced as Annexure P-11 who also is said to be a valuation expert but without producing any credentials; disputed in cross-examination. The depositions of the said witnesses can only be taken as having proved the signature of the person who prepared Annexures P-3 to P-5, but no reliance can be placed on it since the credentials of the so-called expert to assess the income from the fruit bearing trees have not been placed before Court.
13. Likewise, insofar as the assessment of constructions are concerned, the report is produced as Annexure P-7 and the deposition of the witness who marked it is produced as Annexure P-10. The so-called expert was one Mr. Ramhari Bayaji Ghodke, but his grandnephew was examined since the former had expired. Again, there was no credentials of the so-called expert produced and, in any event, going by the decision in O. Janardhan Reddy2 there cannot be a separate valuation of the well and the pipelines which has been put in place for the purpose of irrigation, thus, enhancing the value of the land as an irrigated land. We are unable to place any reliance on both the expert witnesses.
14. We hence order that the compensation awarded for the irrigated land having larger extents should be at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per are and there can be no further amounts granted for the constructions said to have been made on the property, which are put in place only for irrigation purposes. Insofar as the fruit bearing trees are concerned, since there is no other reliable evidence, we confirm the compensation granted by the High Court, applying the multiplier of 8, relying on the decision in Gurcharan Singh3. We cannot accept the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the fruit bearing trees would have much more life than eight years. It is an accepted principle that while considering damages for loss occasioned, whether it be on account of a tortious liability or on acquisition for public purpose, the life expectancy would be regulated by a multiplier employed and it cannot go by the normal life expectancy; which in any event would be subject to vagaries of time and fate. However, on a reading of Chindha Fakira Patil4, we do not find any principle of applying a deduction of 20% to the compensation calculated for the loss of fruit bearing trees which would stand deleted. The appeals stand partly allowed and the compensation as computed as per this order would be paid with interest and solatium from the date of acquisition, after deducting what has already been paid, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.
15. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
———
1 for short, the LAR
2 (1994) 6 SCC 456
3 1995 Supp (2) SCC 637
4 (2011) 10 SCC 787
5 2025 INSC 900
