Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals

“Public Exchequer Cannot Be Burdened for Claimant’s Lapses—But Authorities’ Delay Cannot Defeat Statutory Benefits”, In a detailed judgment balancing market valuation principles with accountability for procedural delay, the Bombay High Court has enhanced land acquisition compensation by correcting an “apparent error” in reckoning the relevant date of Section 4 notification, while restricting statutory benefits for periods attributable to claimants’ delay.

Justice Shailesh P. Brahme partly allowed the appeals, enhancing compensation to Rs.2,922/- per Are for dry lands and Rs.4,383/- per Are for semi-irrigated lands, while also granting 9% interest towards rental value for pre-notification possession.

The ruling reiterates three critical principles: the “last date of publication” under Section 4(1) is the determinative date for valuation; comparable sale instances must be examined with precision; and delay attributable to litigants cannot be loaded onto the public exchequer.

Background: Acquisition for Village Tank No. 2

The lands situated at village Nipani Jawalka, Taluka Georai, District Beed, were acquired for construction of Village Tank No. 2. The Section 4 notification was published in the Gazette on 13.01.2005, but the last date of publication under Section 4(1) was 11.07.2005. The award was passed on 15.06.2007.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer treated all lands as dry lands and awarded compensation at Rs.690/- per Are. The Reference Court enhanced the rate to Rs.2000/- per Are for non-irrigated lands and Rs.2500/- per Are for irrigated lands, classifying some lands as irrigated.

The claimants sought further enhancement relying on sale exemplars and contended that the Reference Court had committed an error in treating 13.01.2005 as the relevant notification date instead of 11.07.2005.

“Last Date of Publication Is the Relevant Date”

Justice Brahme categorically held:

“The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in Government Gazette on 13.01.2005 and the last date of publication is 11.07.2005 under Section 4(1) of the Act. It shall be treated as the date of notification.”

The Court found that the Reference Court erred in adopting 13.01.2005 as the relevant date. This mistake materially affected the rejection of a crucial sale instance dated 24.04.2005 (Exh.22), which fell between January and July 2005.

Calling it an error “apparent on the face of the record,” the Court held that the incorrect date had unjustly led to discarding a relevant comparable sale.

Comparable Sale Instance from Adjacent Village Accepted

Seven sale instances (Exhs.16 to 22) were examined. The Court rejected:

– Exh.18 (1998 sale of 11 R land from different village) due to time gap and small area;

– Exh.21 (18 R land) for lack of compatibility.

However, Exh.22 dated 24.04.2005, relating to sale of 77 R land from Gat No.353 of village Pachegaon at Rs.2,922/- per Are, was found suitable.

The Court noted that Nipani Jawalka shares a boundary with Pachegaon and that the exemplar satisfied proximity in time, area, and location.

Accordingly, the Court held: “The appellants are entitled to receive the rate at the rate of Rs.2922/- per Are for the dry land.”

Consequentially, the rate for semi-irrigated land was fixed at Rs.4,383/- per Are.

Irrigated vs. Dry Land: Mere Well Not Enough

The Court disapproved the Reference Court’s classification of certain lands as fully irrigated merely due to existence of a well.

Justice Brahme observed: “Mere existence of a well in Survey No.209 is not sufficient to treat the lands as irrigated.”

Finding no cogent evidence of full irrigation, the Court corrected the classification and limited enhancement accordingly.

Highest Bona Fide Exemplar Can Be Adopted

Relying on Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab (AIR 2012 SC 2721), the Court reaffirmed that the highest bona fide exemplar may be adopted if comparable.

The claimants’ reliance on Pehlad Ram for escalation was rejected as unnecessary because Exh.22 was proximate in time to the notification.

Further, invoking Ambya Kalya Mhatra v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated that even if the claimants had sought Rs.3000/- per Are, the Court could award higher compensation if justified.

Pre-Notification Possession: Rental Compensation at 9%

Significantly, possession had been taken on 20.12.2003, nearly 18 months before the Section 4 notification dated 11.07.2005.

Instead of remanding for separate determination of rental compensation, the Court granted: “9% per annum on enhanced compensation from the date of handing over of possession till the notification.”

This approach was adopted in light of a Supreme Court decision dated 16.04.2024, which had enhanced rental interest rates in similar cases.

Delay in Reference: Claimants to Bear Consequences of Own Lapses

A crucial aspect of the judgment concerns delay in payment of deficit court fees.

Although references were filed on 18.01.2008, deficit court fees were paid only on 17.06.2011, and references were registered on 11.08.2014.

The Court drew a clear distinction:

– Period from 18.01.2008 to 17.06.2011: attributable to claimants — no statutory benefits.

– Period from 17.06.2011 to 11.08.2014: attributable to authorities — benefits payable.

Justice Brahme firmly observed: “The public exchequer cannot be burdened for the lapses attributable to the claimants.”

At the same time, he noted that the Collector and SLAO are under obligation to promptly refer matters and communicate objections regarding court fees.

This calibrated approach reflects judicial sensitivity to both public finance and claimant rights.

Interest Under Sections 28 and 34

The Court directed that interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act be granted in accordance with the Full Bench decision in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari (2016 AIR (Bom) 141).

The appeals were partly allowed. Compensation was enhanced to:

• Rs.2,922/- per Are for dry lands
  – Rs.4,383/- per Are for semi-irrigated lands

Claimants were granted:

– 9% per annum on enhanced compensation from date of possession till notification (towards rental value);
– Statutory benefits excluding the period from 18.01.2008 to 17.06.2011;
– Full benefits for period from 17.06.2011 to 11.08.2014;
– Interest under Sections 28 and 34 as per Full Bench ruling.

The Reference Court was directed to draw the modified award.

The judgment reinforces precision in applying Section 4 notification dates, adherence to comparable sale principles, and a balanced approach in allocating responsibility for procedural delay.

Date of Decision: 13/02/2026