Bombay High Court
LAXMAN DEORAO SAKALKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Disposal
- Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
Holding
The acquired land is irrigated and the appellant is entitled to compensation at Rs 8,850 per R with all statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Summary
The appellant, Laxman Deorao Sakalkar, appealed the award of the 3rd Joint Civil Judge concerning compensation for land acquired for the Dhudhana Minor Irrigation Project. He argued that the land was irrigated, citing the Special Land Acquisition Officer's separate compensation for a well and pipeline, 7/12 extracts showing a well, and crop patterns of sugarcane, cotton, banana and vegetables. The respondents contended that only 13 R of the land was irrigated based on a report of the Superintendent of Land Records, which was not proved before the Reference Court. The Court held that the evidence of the well, pipeline and crop pattern conclusively proved the land was irrigated and that the Reference Court’s finding of limited irrigation was unsupported. Relying on a prior coordinate bench decision for the same project, the Court fixed the compensation rate at Rs 8,850 per R with all statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether the acquired land should be classified as irrigated or dry crop land for the purpose of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
- Whether the evidence of a well, pipeline and crop pattern is sufficient to establish that the entire acquired land was irrigated.
- Whether the compensation rate fixed by a prior coordinate bench decision is applicable to the present case.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- irrigated land
- compensation valuation
- statutory benefits
- 7/12 extracts
- irrigation evidence
- coordinate bench precedent
- appeal
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:26127
1 of 5 920-FA.1849.2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
920 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1849 OF 2017
LAXMAN DEORAO SAKALKAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...
Mr. Mahesh V. Ghatge, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Mahesh C. Swami, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
...
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3825 OF 2026
IN FA/1849/2017
LAXMAN DEORAO SAKALKAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
…
Mr. Mahesh V. Ghatge, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Mahesh C. Swami, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 2nd JULY, 2026
P.C.:-
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.
2. By the present appeal, the Appellant has challenged the
judgment and award dated 25.03.2017 passed by the learned 3rd Joint
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna in L.A.R. No.467 of 2011.
3. The original claimant sought enhancement of compensation
in respect of the land acquired for the Dhudhana Minor Irrigation
2 of 5 920-FA.1849.2017
Project.
4. Mr. Mahesh V. Ghatge, learned Advocate for the
Appellant/Claimant invited my attention to the award passed by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer, particularly page No.133 of the paper-
book. He submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer himself recorded
that the acquired land was irrigated land and accordingly awarded
separate compensation for the well and the pipeline. He further invited
my attention to the 7/12 extracts exhibited at page Nos.49 to 53 of the
paper-book, which clearly indicate the existence of a well. The said
extracts were duly proved before the Reference Court. He further
submitted that the crop pattern reflected cultivation of sugarcane,
cotton, wheat and other crops, which clearly establishes that the land
was irrigated. According to him, the learned Reference Court failed to
assign any reasons for holding that only 13 R of the acquired land was
irrigated and for treating the remaining land as dry crop land. Such a
finding appears to have been recorded merely on the submissions made
on behalf of the acquiring body without any supporting evidence. He
further relied upon the judgment of this Court in a batch of First
Appeals arising out of the same acquisition notification and pertaining
to the same project, wherein compensation at the rate of Rs.8,850/-
per R was awarded for irrigated land. He, therefore, prayed that the
appeal be allowed.
3 of 5 920-FA.1849.2017
5. Per contra, Mr. Swami, learned Advocate appearing for
Respondent No.3–Acquiring Body, vehemently opposed the appeal. He
submitted that merely because separate compensation was awarded for
the well and pipeline, it cannot automatically be inferred that the
entire acquired land was irrigated. According to him, the claimant
failed to adduce cogent evidence before the Reference Court to
establish that the whole land was irrigated. He further submitted that,
on the basis of the report of the Superintendent of Land Records, it was
contended before the Reference Court that only 13 R of the acquired
land was irrigated. Therefore, the learned Reference Court rightly
treated the remaining land as dry crop land while determining the
compensation.
6. I have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused
the record and proceedings. There is no dispute that 4 Hectares 50 R
from Gat No.5A and 1 Hectare 82 R from Gat No.39/B were acquired
for the project.
7. I have also gone through the exhibited copies of the 7/12
extracts, which clearly show the existence of a well in the acquired
land. Further, the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer
reveals that separate compensation was awarded for the well as well as
the pipeline. This factual aspect is not disputed by the respondents.
8. Once the Special Land Acquisition Officer himself granted
4 of 5 920-FA.1849.2017
separate compensation for the well and the pipeline, there can hardly
be any doubt that the acquired land was irrigated. The finding
recorded by the learned Reference Court that only 13 R of the acquired
land was irrigated is unsupported by any cogent evidence. Although
Mr. Swami sought to rely upon a report of the Superintendent of Land
Records, no such report was proved in evidence before the Reference
Court by examining any competent witness. In the absence of any
admissible evidence, such a contention cannot be accepted.
9. The crop pattern reflected in the 7/12 extracts also shows
cultivation of sugarcane, cotton, banana and vegetables, which
unmistakably indicates that the acquired land was under irrigation.
10. Moreover, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, while deciding a
batch of First Appeals arising out of the very same acquisition
notification, village and project, has already determined the market
value of irrigated land at Rs.8,850/- per R. In the interest of
maintaining consistency, the Appellant is entitled to the same rate.
11. Accordingly, I hold that the acquired land is irrigated land
and that the Appellant is entitled to compensation at the rate of
Rs.8,850/- per R, together with all statutory benefits available under
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Hence, I pass the following order:-
ORDER
(i) In the result, the present appeal is allowed.
5 of 5 920-FA.1849.2017
(ii) The judgment and award dated 25.03.2017 passed by
the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna
in L.A.R. No.467 of 2011 is modified to the extent that
the acquired land shall be treated as irrigated land, and
the Appellant shall be entitled to compensation at the
rate of Rs.8,850/- per R, along with all consequential
statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act.
(iii) Rest of the order passed by the learned Reference Court
stands confirmed.
(iv) Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Tauseef
Checking your session…