Bombay High Court
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION MEDIUM PROJECT, OSMANABAD AND ORSversusLAXMAN RAM AWATADE
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The reference court correctly determined market value and tree compensation, but interest and statutory benefits must be awarded in accordance with State of Maharashtra v. Kailas Shiva Rangari.
Summary
The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Medium Project, Osmanabad sought to acquire lands in Wangi (Bk) for a storage tank. The acquisition was notified in 2004 and the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs 24,000 per hectare. The claimants appealed under Section 18, and the reference court enhanced compensation to Rs 1,61,700 per acre and awarded amounts for trees. The acquiring body appealed, arguing the reference court wrongly used a 2002 sale price and improperly granted interest from the date of possession. The High Court held that the reference court correctly applied a 10% escalation to determine market value and properly compensated for trees, but erred on interest and statutory benefits, which must follow the precedent in State of Maharashtra v. Kailas Shiva Rangari. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed: compensation awards were confirmed, while interest and statutory benefits were to be adjusted as per the cited case.
Issues considered
- The reference court’s method of enhancing compensation using a 2002 sale instance and a 10% escalation is correct.
- Whether the compensation awarded for trees, based on the valuer’s report, is proper without deductions.
- Whether interest and other statutory benefits should be payable from the date of possession of the acquired land.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 18, 4, 6
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- market value
- trees
- interest
- statutory benefits
- escalation
- reference court
- partial appeal
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:37341
FA 4723/17 & Ors.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
13 FIRST APPEAL NO. 4723 OF 2017
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7787 OF 2016 IN FA/4723/2017
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION MEDIUM PROJECT,
OSMANABAD AND ORS
VERSUS
LAXMAN RAM AWATADE
…
14 FIRST APPEAL NO. 4724 OF 2017
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7772 OF 2016 IN FA/4724/2017
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION MEDIUM PROJECT,
OSMANABAD AND ORS
VERSUS
JALINDAR MAHADEO AWATADE AND ANR
…
15 FIRST APPEAL NO. 4725 OF 2017
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7784 OF 2016 IN FA/4725/2017
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION MEDIUM PROJECT,
OSMANABAD AND ORS
VERSUS
NAMDEO RAM AWATADE
…
16 FIRST APPEAL NO. 4726 OF 2017
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7778 OF 2016 IN FA/4726/2017
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION MEDIUM PROJECT,
OSMANABAD AND ORS
VERSUS
KISAN DAMU AWATADE DIED HIS LRS PRAYAGBAI KISAN AWTADE AND ANR
…
17 FIRST APPEAL NO. 4727 OF 2017
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7775 OF 2016 IN FA/4727/2017
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION MEDIUM PROJECT,
OSMANABAD AND ORS
VERSUS
BHIMRAO GYANABA AWATADE
FA 4723/17 & Ors.
2
…
18 FIRST APPEAL NO. 4728 OF 2017
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7782 OF 2016 IN FA/4728/2017
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION MEDIUM PROJECT,
OSMANABAD AND ORS
VERSUS
RAMLING MAHADEO AWATADE
…
19 FIRST APPEAL NO. 4729 OF 2017
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7780 OF 2016 IN FA/4729/2017
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION MEDIUM PROJECT,
OSMANABAD AND ORS
VERSUS
ANANTA BHANUDAS AWATADE
...
Advocate for Appellants in all matters : Mr. Rajale Gulab B.
Advocate for Respondents in all matters : Mr. Murge Estling S.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
Dated : August 17, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. Admit.
2. As the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 2004, heard
finally with the consent of learned counsel for respective parties.
3. By these appeals, the appellant/acquiring body is assailing the
common judgment and award dated 9.7.2014 passed by the learned Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Bhoom, District Osmanabad in LAR Nos. 960, 473,
961, 964, 965, 966 and 962 of 2014.
4. The lands of the original claimants situated at village Wangi (Bk) were
acquired for Wangi (Jawala) Storage Tank, Taluka Bhoom, District
Osmanabad. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act came
to be published on 2.9.2004, declaration under section 6 of the Act was
FA 4723/17 & Ors.
3
published on 26.1.2006. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) has
declared the award on 23.3.2007 and has granted compensation at the rate
of Rs.24,000/- per H. for acquired lands and also granted compensation for
trees in LAR Nos. 960/2014 and 473/2014. Being aggrieved by the award of
the SLAO, the original claimants filed above references under section 18 of
the Act. After considering the evidence on record, the learned reference
court has enhanced the compensation for acquired lands at the rate of
Rs.1,61,700/- per Acre. and as regards trees in LAR Nos. 960/2014 and
473/2014 are concerned, considering the award of SLAO and E statement,
compensation was granted by the learned reference court. Being aggrieved
by the same, the present first appeals are filed by the acquiring body.
5. Mr. G.B. Rajale, learned counsel for the acquiring body/appellants
submits that the reference court has wrongly enhanced compensation by
considering the sale instance, Exh. 18, dated 16.5.2002 by which the land
admeasuring 38 R. from village Wangi was sold for Rs. 1,40,000/- and
therefore, in view of the above sale instance, he submits that the reference
court ought not to have enhanced the compensation at the rate of
Rs.1,61,700/- per Acre. by giving increase of price at the rate of 5% p.a.
from 2002 to 2004. He further submits that SLAO has granted proper
compensation considering the relevant sale deeds.
6. As far as trees are concerned, Mr. Rajale, learned counsel for
appellant submits that the learned reference court has wrongly relied upon
the valuer’s report without applying deductions and awarded compensation
for the trees. Therefore, he submits that the order passed in LAR Nos.
960/2014 and 473/2014 wherein the reference court has granted
compensation for trees and in other LARS wherein compensation was
FA 4723/17 & Ors.
4
granted for acquired lands need to be set aside. He further submits that the
the learned reference court has granted interest and other statutory
benefits from the date of taking over possession of the acquired lands which
is contrary to the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of
State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (4) Mh.L.J. 457. He,
therefore, prays to allow the appeals filed by the acquiring body.
7. Per contra, Mr. E.S. Murge, learned counsel appearing for original
claimants supports the judgment and award passed by the reference court
by submitting that the learned reference court, after considering the sale
instance, Exh. 18, which was from the same village and executed prior to
section 4 notification, by applying 10% escalation determined the correct
market rate of the acquired lands of the claimants. As regards
compensation granted in respect of trees are concerned, he submits that
very meager compensation was granted by the reference court by relying
upon the valuer’s report and considering the number of trees mentioned in
the award of SLAO. He further submits that even the acquiring body has not
submitted any contra evidence before the reference court and also before
this Court showing that the reference court has granted exorbitant
compensation for the acquired lands as well as three. He therefore prays to
dismiss the appeals filed by the acquiring body.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, with their
assistance I have gone through the record and proceedings and the copy of
the impugned judgment and award of the learned reference court, the
award passed by the SLAO and also the sale instance dated 16.5.2002, Exh.
18, which was executed before section 4 notification, by which the land
admeasuring 38 R. from village Wangi (BK) was sold for Rs.1,40,000/-. As
FA 4723/17 & Ors.
5
the said sale instance was of the year 2002 and notification under section 4
was published on 2.9.2004, considering the same, the reference court has
granted 10% escalation and arrived at market value of the acquired lands at
the rate of Rs.1,61,700/- per Acre. Therefore, considering the above, I hold
that the learned reference court has rightly determined the market value of
the acquired lands and has not granted any excessive or exorbitant
compensation.
9. As regards trees are concerned, the learned reference court has
granted compensation as per the number of trees mentioned in the E
statement and award of the SLAO and also by considering the valuer’s
report. More particularly, it is seen that the acquiring body has not brought
any contra evidence to suggest that for the acquired trees less valuation
needs to be granted. Therefore, without there being any contra evidence, I
find that the reference court has rightly determined the compensation for
the acquired trees. Considering the discussion made above, I hold that the
reference court has not committed any illegality or perversity while granting
compensation for trees as well as for acquired lands. Therefore, I am not
inclined to interfere in the impugned judgment and award passed by the
learned reference court to that extent.
10. However, as far as interest and other statutory benefits are
concerned, the same is given from the date of taking over possession of the
acquired lands which is contrary to the law laid down by the Full Bench of
this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari
(supra). Hence, I pass the following order.
ORDER
(I) The appeals are partly allowed.
FA 4723/17 & Ors.
6
(II) As regards compensation granted in respect of acquired lands and
trees are concerned, the impugned judgment and order passed by the
reference court is confirmed.
(III) As regards interest and other statutory benefits are concerned, the
claimants are entitled to received in the same strictly in view of the law laid
down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs.
Kailas Shiva Rangari (supra).
(IV) Claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount, if any, deposited by
the acquiring body in view of the law laid down by State of Maharashtra vs.
Kailas Shiva Rangari (supra).
(V) Claimants to pay deficit court fee, if any, on enhanced amount.
(VI) Pending civil applications, if any, stands disposed of.
( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )
ssc/
Checking your session…