Bombay High Court

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGAION PROJECT STRENGTHENING DIVISION, OMERGA, OSMANABADversusPRAKASH MAHADU MULE AND OTHERS

Disposal: PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The Court upheld the earlier coordinate‑bench award of Rs.60,000 per acre, dismissing the appeals.

Summary

The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Project Strengthening Division, Omerga, appealed against a 2011 judgment that enhanced compensation for land acquired in 1986 for the Benitura Medium Project. The original award had fixed compensation at Rs.13,000 per hectare, which claimants sought to increase to Rs.150,000 per hectare, and the reference court had later enhanced it to Rs.60,000 per acre. The appellants argued that a sale instance relied upon by the reference court, dated 19 March 1994, occurred after the Section 4 notification of 21 April 1988 and therefore should not be used as a comparable sale. The court considered whether it should depart from earlier coordinate‑bench decisions (First Appeal Nos. 18 of 2006 and 1596 of 2012) that had already affirmed the Rs.60,000 per acre award. Emphasising judicial discipline and consistency, the judge declined to entertain the new argument and adopted the earlier rulings. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed and the pending civil applications were also disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether a sale transaction occurring after the Section 4 notification can be treated as a comparable sale for compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.
Whether the Court should depart from earlier coordinate‑bench decisions that affirmed compensation of Rs.60,000 per acre.
Whether judicial consistency mandates adopting the prior award despite the appellants' new contentions.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4

Subjects

Land Acquisition
Compensation
Section 4
Judicial Consistency
Reference Court
Appeal
Award Enhancement

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:34355
1 of 5 911-FA.3881.2017 (modified).odt

This order is modified as per speaking to the minutes of order dated 07.08.2026.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

911 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3881 OF 2017

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGAION PROJECT STRENGTHENING
DIVISION, OMERGA, OSMANABAD
VERSUS
SHEKAPPA MAHADU MULE AND OTHERS
...
Mr. Avishkar S. Shelke, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Vivekanand V. Ingale and Mr. Nileshsingh J. Patil, Advocate for
Respondent No.1-Claimant.
...
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3883 OF 2017

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGAION PROJECT STRENGTHENING
DIVISION, OMERGA, OSMANABAD
VERSUS
DATTU MAHADU MULE AND OTHERS
…
Mr. Avishkar S. Shelke, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Nileshsingh J. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.1-Claimant.

AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5540 OF 2015
IN FA/3880/2017

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGAION PROJECT STRENGTHENING
DIVISION, OMERGA, OSMANABAD
VERSUS
PRAKASH MAHADU MULE AND OTHERS
…
Mr. Avishkar S. Shelke, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Vivekanand V. Ingale and Mr. Nileshsingh J. Patil, Advocate for
Respondent No.1.

AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5536 OF 2015
IN FA/3881/2017
2 of 5 911-FA.3881.2017 (modified).odt

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGAION PROJECT STRENGTHENING
DIVISION, OMERGA, OSMANABAD
VERSUS
SHEKAPPA MAHADU MULE AND OTHERS
…
Mr. Avishkar S. Shelke, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Vivekanand V. Ingale and Mr. Nileshsingh J. Patil, Advocate for
Respondent No.1.

AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5534 OF 2015
IN FA/3883/2017

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGAION PROJECT STRENGTHENING
DIVISION, OMERGA, OSMANABAD
VERSUS
DATTU MAHADU MULE AND OTHERS
…
Mr. Avishkar S. Shelke, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for Respondent-State.

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3880 OF 2017

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGAION PROJECT STRENGTHENING
DIVISION, OMERGA, OSMANABAD
VERSUS
PRAKASH MAHADU MULE AND OTHERS
…
Mr. Avishkar S. Shelke, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Vivekanand V. Ingale and Mr. Nileshsingh J. Patil, Advocate for
Respondent No.1-Claimant.
...

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.

DATE : 22nd JULY, 2026

P.C.:-

1. Admit.
3 of 5 911-FA.3881.2017 (modified).odt

2. Since the acquisition proceedings pertain to the year 1986,

the appeal is heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates

for the respective parties.

3. By the present appeals, the Appellant-acquiring body is

aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 28.07.2011 passed by the

learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Omerga, District Osmanabad

in LAR Nos.437/2009, 443/2009 and 441/2009, whereby

compensation came to be enhanced.

4. The lands of the Claimants were acquired for the purpose of

Benitura Medium Project, the Notification under Section 4 was

published on 21.04.1988, the award was passed on 26.09.1992. The

SLAO awarded compensation @ of Rs.13,000/- per Hector, the

Claimants had claimed compensation @ of Rs.1,50,000/- per Hector

for dry land. The learned Reference Court enhanced the same @ of

Rs.60,000/- per Acre.

5. Mr. Vivekanand V. Ingale, learned Advocate for the original

Claimants tenders a copy of the judgment passed by the Coordinate

Bench of this Court in First Appeal Nos.18 of 2006 and 1596 of 2012.

He submits that the acquisition in those appeals pertains to the same

village and the same project. He further submits that both the

acquiring body as well as the Claimants had approached this Court,

and the Coordinate Bench confirmed the award granting compensation

at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per acre. He submits that wherever the
4 of 5 911-FA.3881.2017 (modified).odt

learned Reference Court had awarded compensation at the rate of

Rs.35,000/- per acre, the same was enhanced to Rs.60,000/- per acre.

Therefore, according to him, the present appeals can also be disposed

of in terms of the said judgment.

6. However, Mr. Avinash Shelke, learned Advocate appearing

for the Acquiring Body submitted that while deciding the earlier

matters, the Coordinate Bench had not considered that the sale

instance relied upon was subsequent to the publication of the

notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. According to

him, the said point was not raised in those appeals. Therefore, he

submits that this Court should independently consider the said issue

and hear the Appellant on this point.

7. He submitted that the notification under Section 4 was

published on 21.04.1988, whereas the sale instance relied upon by the

learned Reference Court and the Coordinate Bench of this Court at

Exhibit-32 is dated 19.03.1994, i.e., more than six years after the

publication of the notification under Section 4. Therefore, according to

him, the said sale instance cannot be treated as a comparable sale

instance. He further submitted that the learned Reference Court has

solely relied upon the said sale instance, and the same has been

affirmed by the Coordinate Bench in the companion matters. He also

submits that this issue was not raised in First Appeal Nos.18 of 2006

and 1596 of 2012.
5 of 5 911-FA.3881.2017 (modified).odt

8. I find that the Coordinate Bench of this Court has already

taken a view in respect of the same acquisition, pertaining to the same

village and the same project. Judicial discipline and propriety require

this Court to adopt a consistent view unless there are compelling

reasons to differ. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the contention

advanced by the learned Advocate for the Acquiring Body seeking a

different view in the present matters.

9. Accordingly, I am inclined to pass the same order as that

passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal Nos.18 of

2006 and 1596 of 2012.

10. The learned Reference Court has awarded compensation at

the rate of Rs.60,000/- per acre, and the same has already been

confirmed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal Nos.18

of 2006 and 1596 of 2012. Therefore, maintaining judicial discipline

and consistency, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned award.

11. In view of the above, the First Appeals stand dismissed. No

order as to costs.

12. Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

Tauseef

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…