Bombay High Court
BALIRAM MULCHAND PATIL, DIED THR. L.RS. SHRIKRISHANA AND ORSversusTHE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MIDC, NASIK AND ORS
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The Court held that the present appeals are governed by the earlier decision in FA No. 1210/12, enhancing compensation to Rs 2,60,000 per hectare and granting statutory benefits and interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Summary
The appeal concerned lands acquired from a village for the MIDC Dhule project, originally awarded compensation in 2005 and 2011. The claimants argued that the matter was identical to a prior decision (FA No. 1210/12) and sought a higher market value and statutory benefits. The Court accepted that the controversy was the same as the earlier case and ordered the appeal dismissed, while partially allowing the cross‑objection and the claimants' appeal. The market value of the land was enhanced to Rs 2,60,000 per hectare, and the claimants were granted all statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, including interest under Section 34 as per the State of Maharashtra v. Kailas Shiva Rangari judgment. The Court modified the award accordingly, discharged any bank guarantees, and ordered the claimants to pay any deficit court fees and to withdraw deposited amounts upon undertaking.
Issues considered
- The applicability of the earlier judgment in FA No. 1210/12 to the present appeals
- Whether the compensation for the acquired lands should be enhanced
- Entitlement of the claimants to statutory benefits and interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 34
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- market value
- interest
- Section 34
- Maharashtra
- MIDC
- judicial precedent
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:40622
FA 1258/05 & anr.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
50 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1258 OF 2005
DEORAM ZIPA PATIL
VERSUS
SPECIAL LAND ACQ OFFICER AND ANR
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A.B. Kale
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.N. Morampalle
Advocate for Respondent 3 : Mr. S.S. Dande
...
81 X-OBJECTION NO. 288 OF 2026
IN FA/740/2012
BALIRAM MULCHAND PATIL, DIED THR. L.RS. SHRIKRISHAN AND ORS
VERSUS
THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, M.I.D.C. NASHIK AND ORS
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 740 OF 2012
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11370 OF 2019 IN FA/740/2012
THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MIDC, NASIK
VERSUS
BALIRAM MULCHAND PATIL, DIED THR. L.RS. SHRIKRISHAN AND ORS
…
Advocate for appellant/acquiring body : Mr. S.S.Dande
Advocate for X-objectioner/claimant : Mr. A.B. Kale
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. A.D. Wange
…
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
Dated : August 31, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. The present appeals arises out of the Judgment and Award dated
9.8.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhule in LAR
No. 80/1998 and judgment and award dated 30.3.2011 passed by the Jt.
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhule in LAR No. 32/1998, respectively.
3. The learned counsel for the acquiring body and original claimants
FA 1258/05 & anr.
2
submits that the lands of the claimants were acquired from the same
village, for the same public purpose i.e. M.I.D.C. Dhule, and under the same
notification as involved in the First Appeal No. 1210/2012 (The Divisional
Officer, M.I.D.C., Nashik Vs. Yadav Bhivsan Patil And Others) and other
connected matters dated 28.7.2026. It is, therefore, contended that the
controversy involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the
judgment and order in FA No. 1210/12 (supra), and consequently, the
present appeals deserve to be disposed of in terms thereof. The learned
A.G.P. appearing for respondent/State fairly concedes the aforesaid position.
4. Having considered the submissions advanced by the 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 in FA No. 1210/12 (supra), I see no reason to take a different
view. The present appeal, therefore, deserves to be disposed of in terms of
the said judgment and order. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
(i) First Appeal No. 740/2012 preferred by the appellant/acquiring body
is dismissed.
(ii) Cross Objection No. 288/2026 in FA No. 740/2012 and First Appeal
No. 1258/2005 preferred by the claimants are partly allowed.
(iii) The market value of the acquired lands is enhanced and determined
at Rs.2,60,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty Thousand only) per Hectare.
(iv) The claimants shall be entitled to all consequential statutory benefits
on the enhanced compensation in accordance with the provisions of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
FA 1258/05 & anr.
3
(v) The claimants shall also be entitled to interest under Section 34 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, strictly in accordance with the Full Bench
judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari
2016 (3) Mh.L. J. 457.
(vi) The claimants shall not be entitled to interest for the delayed period,
if any, in accordance with the orders passed in the respective matters.
(vii) Save and except the above modification in the quantum of
compensation, the impugned Judgments and Awards passed by the learned
Reference Court shall remain unaltered.
(viii) The Bank Guarantees, if any, furnished by the respective claimants
stand discharged.
(ix) The claimants shall pay deficit court fees, if any.
(x) The claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by
the appellant-acquiring body, together with accrued interest, if any, upon
furnishing the usual undertaking to the satisfaction of the Registrar
(Judicial) of this Court.
(xi) Modified award be drawn accordingly.
(xii) Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )
ssc/
Checking your session…