SHAYMRAO ABHIMAN (DIED) THR LRS. SHESHRAO SHYAMRAO BHADARGEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR, JALNA AND OTHERS

                                                      22-sr922CA.16935.2022


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 922 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16935 OF 2022
                            IN FAST/30926/2022

Shaymrao Abhiman (died) Through Lrs. Sheshrao Shyamrao Bhadarge
                            VERSUS
   The State Of Maharashtra Through Collector, Jalna And Others

                                  ----
Mr.Deepak M. Kakade, Advocate for applicant
Mr.S.P.Sonpavale, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 2
Mr.R.K.Ingole, Advocate for respondent no.3
                                  ----

                            CORAM :     AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                            DATE  :     AUGUST 29, 2026
ORDER :-

               The applicants who are original claimants has filed First

Appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 06.02.2014 passed

by learned Reference Court, Jalna in L.A.R. NO.329 of 2010. There is

delay of 3115 days caused in filing the appeal.


2              Learned advocate for the applicants submits that the

applicants/appellants are poor persons and land owners whose sole

source of livelihood has been taken away in the compulsory

acquisition.    He would submit that for want of correct knowledge of

proceedings, the applicants could not approach earlier for filing the

First Appeal.      He would further submit that the proceedings for

enhancement is a piece of beneficial legislation and hence the
                                   2                      22-sr922CA.16935



applicants/appellants must get opportunity to demonstrate their

entitlement for higher compensation.    He also places on record a

copy of the order passed by this court on 19.12.2025 in First

Appeal No.1963 of 2021 (Ashroba Dadarao Giram (Died)

through L.Rs. Dwarkabai and others Vs.              The State of

Maharashtra and anr.) with connected matters. He would submit

that the cited matters arose out of the same land acquisition

proceedings and are absolute identical to the case in hand.          He

would submit that on the same set of facts and evidence, this court

has granted enhancement to the appellants in the cited matters. He

was at pains to submit that if the applicants are not given an

opportunity to establish their entitlement for enhancement in

compensation on the principle of parity, the very object of the

beneficial legislation shall stand frustrated only on the ground of

limitation. With this, he prays to condone the delay and pass

appropriate order in the First Appeal on the basis of the cited order

on the principle of parity.


3.             Yesterday, this matter was taken up. This court made

specific query to Mr.R.K.Ingole, learned advocate for the acquiring

body to verify the contents of the cited order with the record and

facts of the present case.
                                      3                       22-sr922CA.16935




4.          In all fairness, Mr.Ingole, learned advocate submits that

the cited orders indeed are identical to the present case. He submits

that he has taken adequate instructions from the Officers of the

acquiring body on comparison of the facts in the cited case as also in

the present case. On instructions, he makes a statement that the

applicants/appellants would be entitled for enhancement on the

principle of parity subject to the limitation.


5.          Upon hearing both the learned advocates for the

respective parties, I find that it is not a disputed fact that the present

matter is different from the matters which are in cited order. From

the response received from the acquiring body it is apparently clear

that in the same facts and circumstances, the present applicants

would also be entitled for enhancement in the same tune.


6.            Now, the issue remains only about the limitation. The

proceedings    for   enhancement      in   compensation     against      the

compulsory land acquisition is a piece of beneficial legislation.

Ordinarily, this court would not have considered the delay as a

technical aspect of the matter.     However, considering the peculiar

facts in the present case and in view of the law laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Kumar vs. State of
                                     4                      22-sr922CA.16935



Haryana and ors., (Civil Appeal arising out of (C) No.670 of

2020) and connected matters decided on 23.04.2025 and on

the principle of parity, I deem it appropriate to allow the application.

However, the applicants obviously shall not be entitled for any sort of

interest on any component for the delayed period.


7.          Hence, I pass following order:-


                              ORDER


(i)       The Civil Application is allowed. Delay caused in filing the

First Appeal stands condoned. Appeal be registered.


In First Appeal (Stamp) No.30926 of 2022:-


(ii)       Issue notice to the respondents. Mr.Jadhavar, learned AGP

waives notice for respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr.R.K.Ingole, learned

advocate waives notice for the respondent no.3 – acquiring body.


(iii)     It is no more in dispute, as is observed in the order passed

in the Civil Application for condonation of delay, that in the matters

arising out of the same land acquisition proceedings and based on

the same set of evidence and facts, this court has granted escalation

in the award vide order dated 19.12.2025. A copy of the said order

is taken on record and marked as “X” for identification. I can see
                                        5                     22-sr922CA.16935



that this court has fixed the rate of Rs.3659/- per R for dry land;

Rs.5488/- per R for seasonally irrigated land; Rs.7318/- per R for fully

irrigated land; and Rs.1829/- per R for Potkharab land.


(iv)          The appellants’ land, as is observed by the reference

court, bears the quality of dry land.          Learned advocate for the

appellants/claimants does not dispute quality of the land and

findings of the trial court on that point. In view of this, I deem it

appropriate        to allow the First Appeal on the principle of parity

keeping in mind the rate fixed by this court vide cited order dated

19.12.2025.


(v)           Hence, I pass the following order:-


              A.      The First Appeal is allowed partly.


              B.      The appellants are entitled to receive the rate of

              Rs. 3,659/- per R.


              C.      The appellants shall be entitled to interest U/Sec.

              28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, payable from the

              date of final award as per the decision in the case of

              State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari,

              2016(4) All MR 513.
                               6                      22-sr922CA.16935




      D.    Save and except above modification, impugned

      judgment and award shall stand unaltered.



      E.    The appellants shall not be entitled to receive

      interest and statutory benefits for the delayed period.



      F.    The appellants shall pay the deficit court fees.



      G.    Award be drawn up accordingly.




                           [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
                         ………..


KBP