NIWARTI GANPATI SHINDE DIED THROUGH HIS LEGAL REPR. SHIVAJI AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH COLLECTOR, LATUR AND ANR.

2026:BHC-AUG:41297
                                                                         904-FA-1146-2008.odt
                                                 1

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              904 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1146 OF 2008
                                            WITH
                     CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10159 OF 2026 IN FA/1146/2008

                                   Niwarti Ganpati Shinde
                                          VERSUS
                            The State Of Maharashtra And Another

                                             ……
          Mr. B.K. Pawar, Advocate for Appellant
          Mr. A.D. Wange, AGP for Respondent No.1-State
                                             ……

                                          CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                          DATE       : 04 SEPTEMBER, 2026
          PER COURT :

          ORDER IN CA/10159 OF 2026:


          1.     The present Civil Application is filed for bringing the legal

          representative of deceased applicant/claimant, Niwarati S/o Ganpati

          Shinde, on record by condoning the delay of 2928 days caused in bringing

          the legal representative of the deceased applicant/claimant on record.


          2.     Considering the averments made in the application, the application

          is allowed. The delay caused in bringing the legal representative of the

          deceased applicant/claimant on record is condoned. Abatement, if any, is set

          aside. The legal representative be brought on record.


          3.     Amendment be carried out accordingly.
                                                               904-FA-1146-2008.odt
                                       2

ORDER IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1446 OF 2008:


4.       Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.


5.       The present appeal arises out of the impugned Judgment and Award

dated 30.07.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur,

in Land Acquisition Reference No.23 of 2004.


6.       Learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned AGP

submit that the controversy involved in the present appeal is squarely

covered by the order dated 05.08.2026 passed by this Court in First Appeal

No.303 of 2006, as the land of the appellant was acquired from the same

village, i.e. Lamjana, for the same public purpose, i.e. construction of

Percolation Tank at village Lamjana, Taluka Ausa, District Latur, and under

the very same notification as involved in the said appeal. They, therefore,

submit that the present appeal may also be disposed of in terms of the said

order.


7.       Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for

the respective parties, and in view of the admitted position that the

controversy involved in the present appeal is identical to the one decided by

this Court by order dated 05.08.2026 in First Appeal No.303 of 2006,

wherein this Court determined the market value of the acquired dry land at

the rate of Rs.1,66,600/- per Hectare, I see no reason to take a different

view. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be disposed of in terms of
                                                               904-FA-1146-2008.odt
                                       3

the said order.


8.      In the present appeal, the learned Reference Court has treated the

acquired land as irrigated land. Therefore, the appellant-claimant is entitled

to compensation for the acquired irrigated/bagayat land at the rate of

Rs.3,33,200/- per Hectare, which is rounded off to Rs.3,33,000/- per

Hectare. However, since the acquired land is irrigated land, the appellant-

claimant is not entitled to separate compensation towards the well.

Accordingly, the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer

towards the well, along with the interest accrued thereon, shall be deducted

from the enhanced compensation. Hence, the following order:


                                  ORDER


(i)     The First Appeal is partly allowed.


(ii)    The impugned Judgment and Award dated 30.07.2007 passed by the

learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, in Land Acquisition Reference

No.23 of 2004 is modified to the aforesaid extent.


(iii)   The appellant-claimant is held entitled to receive compensation for

the acquired irrigated/bagayat land at the rate of Rs.3,33,000/- per Hectare.


(iv)    Since the acquired land has been treated as irrigated land, the

appellant-claimant shall not be entitled to separate compensation towards

the well. The amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer
                                                                   904-FA-1146-2008.odt
                                          4

towards the well, along with the interest accrued thereon, shall accordingly

be deducted from the enhanced compensation.


(v)        The appellant-claimant shall be entitled to all statutory benefits

under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in accordance with law.


(vi)       The appellant-claimant shall be entitled to interest under Sections 28

and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, strictly in accordance with the

Full Bench decision of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailas Shiva

Rangari, 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457.


(vii)      The appellant-claimant shall not be entitled to interest for the period

of delay, if any.


(viii)     The modified award be drawn accordingly.


(ix)       The remaining part of the Judgment and Award passed by the

learned Reference Court shall remain unaltered.


(x)        The appellant-claimant shall pay the deficit Court fees, if any, on the

enhanced compensation.



                                               [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                         JUDGE
S P Rane