Supreme Court Enhances Compensation for Land Acquired for Jintur MIDC, Grants Solatium and Interest but Denies Interest for Delay in SLP

A bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K. Vinod Chandran heard a batch of appeals challenging the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench order dated 21 April 2022 that had dismissed first appeals filed by claimants against awards in land acquisition proceedings under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 for the proposed MIDC near Jintur. The appeals arose from possessions taken in December 1994 and related references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The Court allowed the present batch of appeals, quashed and set aside the impugned High Court judgment and the Reference Court award dated 7 June 2007, and directed enhancement of compensation from Rs. 32,000 per acre to Rs. 58,320 per acre. The Court further directed that "all other consequential benefits of solatium and interest on the enhanced compensation in terms of Section 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, be granted to the Appellants," while holding that the claimants were "not be entitled to the interest for the period of delay in filing the Special Leave Petition." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Vide judgment and order dated 28th July 2025 in Manohar (supra), this Court has held that the ten sale exemplars placed before the Reference Court by the claimants/landowners were found to be of small plots of the land, each of them being less than 1 Hectare, in the Jintur town. We had, therefore, while accepting the sale exemplars concurred with the conclusion of the Reference Court that a reasonable reduction requires to be made. Accordingly, while granting compensation as per the highest sale exemplar dated 31st March 1990, having market value of Rs. 72,900/- per Acre, we deemed it appropriate to apply a deduction of 20% i.e., Rs. 14,580 per Acre."

Background

The dispute arose from acquisition proceedings initiated in the 1990s for setting up an industrial area near Jintur town in Parbhani District. A Section 32 notice issued on 16 January 1992 preceded State possession on 6 December 1994. An award followed fixing total compensation of Rs. 45,70,508 for approximately 89.44 hectares. Aggrieved by quantum, the claimants accepted compensation under protest and filed references under Section 18 LA Act in 1997. The Reference Court in L.A.R. No. 61 of 1997 partly enhanced compensation by its judgment and award dated 7 June 2007. A learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, however, dismissed the subsequent first appeals by a common judgment dated 21 April 2022.

Before this Court, the appellants relied on parity with earlier decisions in Manohar & Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others (judgment dated 28 July 2025) in which this Court accepted sale exemplars and applied a 20% deduction while fixing compensation. The State and Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) contested parity, urging that the lands in the present batch lay farther from Jintur and that a higher deduction was warranted. The Court examined documentary evidence including village and town maps and agreed with earlier factual findings that the acquired lands were adjacent to Jintur town, had "N.A. potentiality," were near the Nashik-Nirmal State Highway and had water availability close by. The Court rejected the MIDC's distance contention and held most of the lands were irrigated or adjacent to the Highway.

Applying the principle of parity with Manohar (supra), the Court enhanced compensation to Rs. 58,320 per acre and awarded solatium and interest under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the LA Act, 1894, but denied interest for the period of delay in filing the Special Leave Petitions. Pending applications were disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1348 Case Title: Ashok s/o Vitthalrao Jagtap v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Adith Satish Deshmukh (learned counsel) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shreenivas Patil (learned counsel) for Respondent No.1 – State; Ms. Shyamali Gadre (learned counsel) for Respondent No.3 – Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation