Chanbai Dadarao Banbare v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:6752 1 53 FA 947 24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT

AURANGABAD 53 FIRST APPEAL NO. 947 OF 2024 CHANBAI DADARAO BANBARE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ...

Advocate for Appellant : Ms. L.R. Thakur h/f Mr. Patil Laxmikant C. AGP for Respondent no. 1 & 2 : Mr. N. D. Raje Advocate for Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Tekale Nikhil S. ...

CORAM :

SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

DATE :

12.02.2026.

FINAL ORDER :

.

Appellant is questioning judgment and award dated 30.04.2019 passed by the Reference Court in L. A. R. No. 280 of 2012 and seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground of parity.

2.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that this Court has been taking consistent view in case of acquisition of house property to accept private valuer's report for awarding the compensation. The Reference Court only granted enhancement to the extent of 40% instead of accepting the valuer's report. 3.

The submissions of the appellant are contested by the respondents. It is submitted that no case is made out for enhancement and adequate compensation has already been granted by the Reference Court.

4.

The acquisition of the house property is for Lendi project and

2 53 FA 947 24 the property is from village Itgyal, Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded. The notification under Section 4 was issued on 03.05.2007 and award was passed under Section 11 on 27.08.2010. Following are the material particulars.

L.A.R. NO.

& date of decision First Appeal no.

House no. and area L.A.O.

granted compensati on Reference Court granted enhancement Valuation and Exh. no. of valuation report 280/2012 30.04.2019 947/2024 Old H. No. 256 new H.No. 164 60.50 square meter Rs.

87,856/- 40% Rs. 35,145/- Rs. 2,85,218/- Exh. 23.

5.

Appellant has adduced evidence of private valuer at Exhibit

23. The valuation is shown to be of Rs. 2,85,218/-. There is no contra evidence adduced by the respondent - acquiring body. This Court has been taking consistent view in accepting the report of the private valuer for enhancing the compensation. A useful reliance can be had to following judgments of the of this Court: (i) Kashinath s/o Nagnth Vs. State of Maharashtra in First Appeal No. 2460/2021, decided on 13.07.2022.

(ii) Ramesh s/o Govindrao Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra, in First Appeal No. 1814/2023, decided on 18.12.2025.

6.

The Reference Court has committed patent illegality in awarding the compensation marginally instead of accepting the report of private valuer in entirety. I, therefore, pass following order.

O R D E R

A.

The first appeal is allowed partly.

3 53 FA 947 24 B.

The appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,85,218/- for the acquired house property. C.

The appellant shall be entitled to receive interest U/Sec. 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari [2016 AIR (Bom.)141] .

D.

Save and except above, the impugned judgment and award shall remain unaltered.

E.

The appellant shall pay the deficit court fees. F.

Award be drawn up accordingly.

G.

Record and proceedings shall be sent back to the Reference Court.

( SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ) mkd/-