Bombay High Court

HARIDAS RAMBHAU LUGADE AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ORS

Disposal: PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED

Holding

Compensation for lands acquired for the same rehabilitation project must be fixed at Rs.250 per square metre after a 32% area deduction, with interest governed by State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari.

Summary

The State of Maharashtra appealed against the enhancement of compensation awarded to claimants for lands acquired for earthquake rehabilitation in villages Pethsangavi and Holi, while the claimants appealed seeking further enhancement. The reference court had increased the market value of the lands and granted statutory benefits, but the State argued that the court relied on unrelated sale instances and misapplied interest provisions. The claimants relied on a recent coordinate bench decision that fixed compensation at Rs.250 per square metre with a 32% area deduction for similar lands in village Holi, seeking parity. The bench held that, given the common purpose of acquisition and proximity of the villages, the same rate should apply to the claimants' lands, but interest must follow the law laid down in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari. Consequently, both the State’s and claimants’ appeals were partly allowed, the awards were modified to reflect Rs.250 per sq. m with the 32% deduction, statutory benefits were granted, and interest was to be awarded as per the earlier precedent.

Issues considered

Whether the compensation enhancement awarded by the reference court can be further increased by applying the rate fixed in a later coordinate bench decision for lands acquired for the same rehabilitation project.
Whether the reference court erred in awarding interest from the date of notification contrary to State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari.
Whether the State’s reliance on sale instances from other villages is permissible for determining compensation in the present cases.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 11, 18, 28, 34, 4

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation enhancement
statutory benefits
interest award
delay condonation
parity principle
earthquake rehabilitation

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:46440-DB
9-FA-435-2014.odt
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

9 FIRST APPEAL NO. 435 OF 2014

The State Of Maharashtra And Others
VERSUS
Rambhaul Bhimrao Lugade

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 434 OF 2014

The State Of Maharashtra Through Collector And Others
VERSUS
Haridas Rambhau Lugade And Another

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9086 OF 2012 IN FAST/18022/2012

Haridas Rambhau Lugade And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9087 OF 2012 IN FAST/18028/2012

Rambhau Bhimrao Lugade
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others

……
Mr. S.S. Dande, AGP for Appellant for Appellant-State in FAs & for
Respondent-State in CAs
Mr. B.K. Pawar, Advocate for Respondents/Claimants No.1 and 2 in FAs & for
Applicants/Claimants in CAs
……

66 FIRST APPEAL NO. 702 OF 2017

Sitabai Govind Survase (Died)
Through L.Rs. Madhav G. Survase/Suryavanshi (Died)
Through L.Rs. Shalini And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra
9-FA-435-2014.odt
2

……
Mr. R.V. Gunale, Advocate h/f Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for Appellants-
Claimants &
Mr. A.D.Wange, AGP for Respondent No.1-State
……

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 28 SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :

ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATIONS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY

1. The present civil applications are filed by the claimants for
condonation of 21 days delay in filing the First Appeals.

2. For the reasons stated in the respective applications, the Civil

Applications deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the delay caused in filing

the First Appeals is condoned, subject to the condition that the claimant

shall not be entitled to statutory benefits for the period of delay. The Civil

Applications stand disposed of.

ORDER IN FIRST APPEALS :

3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

4. These appeals are directed against the common Judgments and

Awards dated 21.03.2012 and 29.03.2012 passed by the learned Civil

Judge, Senior Division, Omerga, in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 211 of

2011, 212 of 2011 and 771 of 2009, whereby the learned Civil Judge,

Senior Division, Omerga partly allowed the references under Section 18 of
9-FA-435-2014.odt
3

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and enhanced the compensation payable to

the respective respondent-claimants along with the statutory benefits.

5. First Appeal No.435 of 2014, 134 of 2014 are preferred by the State

challenging the enhancement granted by the Reference Court, whereas First

Appeals (Stamp) No. 18022 of 2012, and 18028 of 2012 and First Appeal

No.702 of 2017 are filed by the original claimants seeking further

enhancement of compensation.

6. The lands belonging to the respective claimants, situated at village

Pethsangavi and Holi, Taluka Omerga, District Osmanabad, were acquired

for the purpose Rehabilitation of village Pethsangavi and Holi. The

particulars of the acquired lands are as under:

Sr. No. First Appeal No. LAR No. Survey/Gat No. Area Acquired
1. 435 of 2014 212 of 2011 46 3 H 71 R
2. 434 of 2011 211 of 2011 47 6 H 57 R
3. 702 of 2017 771 of 2009 46/2011 1 H 72 R

7. In LAR No. 211 of 2012 and 2012 of 2011, the notification under

Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) was

published on 24.02.1994 . Thereafter, the Special Land Acquisition Officer

(for short, “the SLOA”) passed an Award under Section 11 of the Act on

26.03.1997 and 30.03.1996. The SLOA determined the market value of the

acquired lands at rate of Rs.24,000/- per Hectare .
9-FA-435-2014.odt
4

8. In LAR No. 702 of 12017, the notification under Section 4 of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) was published on

13.06.1994 . Thereafter, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “the

SLOA”) passed an Award under Section 11 of the Act on 30.03.1996. The

SLOA determined the market value of the acquired lands at rate of

Rs.25,000/- per Hectare .

9. The claimants, being dissatisfied with the market value determined

by the SLOA, accepted the amount of compensation under protest and

sought reference under Section 18 of the Act.

10. Upon consideration of the evidence led by the parties, the learned

Reference Court enhanced the market value to Rs.1,52,380/- per Acre for

acquired land in LAR Nos.211 and 2012 of 2011 and in LAR No.702 of 2017

at the rate of Rs. 17,317/- per Acre, along with the statutory benefits.

11. Learned counsel Mr. A.B. Kale, holding for Mr. B.K. Pawar, learned

counsel for the claimants, tenders across the Bar a copy of the order dated

12.11.2025 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal

No.2528 of 2025 and connected matters. He submits that, in the said

matters, the lands situated at village Holi were acquired for the

rehabilitation of persons affected by the earthquake. The Coordinate Bench

enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.250/- per sq. mtr., after

applying a deduction of 32% in respect of the acquired area. He, therefore,
9-FA-435-2014.odt
5

submits that the present claimants are also entitled to the same rate on the

ground of parity. He has also invited the attention of this Court to copies of

other awards, including the award dated 30.03.1996 passed by the SLAO in

respect of lands situated at villages Holi and Pethsangavi, as well as other

awards relating to lands situated at villages Holi and Chincholi. He submits

that these villages are situated in close proximity and that the lands therein

were acquired for rehabilitation purposes under different notifications. In

view of the determination of compensation made by the Coordinate Bench

in respect of village Holi, he submits that the claimants herein are also

entitled to compensation at the same rate. He, therefore, prays that the

appeals filed by the claimants be allowed. Learned counsel Mr. Gunale, appearing

for the claimants in F.A. No. 702 of 2012, supports the submissions advanced by learned

counsel Mr. Kale.

12 Per contra, the learned AGPs appearing for the State in the respective

appeals submit that the learned Reference Court erred in enhancing the

compensation by relying upon sale instances pertaining to different villages.

They submit that the orders passed in other Land Acquisition References are

not binding precedents. They further submit that the compensation

determined by the Coordinate Bench in respect of village Holi cannot be

applied to the present cases, as the acquired lands are situated at village

Pethsangavi and a sale instance pertaining to village Pethsangavi is available

for consideration. The learned AGPs further submit that the learned

Reference Court awarded interest from the date of publication of the
9-FA-435-2014.odt
6

notification, which is contrary to the law laid down by the Full Bench of this

Court in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari, reported in 2016 (3)

Mh.L.J. 457. They, therefore, pray that the appeals filed by the State be

allowed.

13. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and with

their able assistance, I have perused the relevant awards and the orders

relied upon by the parties.

14. It has come on record that awards were passed in respect of lands

situated at villages Holi and Pethsangavi, as well as villages Holi and

Chincholi. The present appeals concern lands situated at village Pethsangavi,

which, like the lands at village Holi, were acquired for the rehabilitation of

persons affected by the earthquake. Though the acquisitions were made

under separate notifications, the purpose was common and the villages are

in close proximity. While deciding First Appeal No.2528 of 2025 and

connected matters, the Coordinate Bench considered Land Acquisition

Reference No.762 of 2009 concerning village Holi and recorded that the

State had decided not to challenge the order passed therein. The Coordinate

Bench applied a deduction of 32% in respect of the acquired area and

determined compensation at the rate of Rs.250/- per sq. mtr. In the

circumstances, that determination is a relevant consideration while

determining compensation for the lands at Pethsangavi.
9-FA-435-2014.odt
7

15. Having regard to judicial propriety and the need to maintain

consistency in the determination of compensation for lands acquired for the

same project, I am of the view that the claimants are entitled to

compensation at the rate of Rs.250/- per sq. mtr., after giving effect to a

deduction of 32%.Accordingly, the appeals filed by the claimants deserve to

be partly allowed. Interest shall, however, be governed by the law laid down

by the Full Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva

Rangari (supra). The appeals filed by the State also deserve to be partly

allowed to that extent. Hence, the following order is passed.

ORDER

(i) The First Appeals filed by the State as well as those filed by the

claimants are partly allowed.

(ii) The Judgment and Award dated 21.03.2012 in Land Acquisition

Reference Nos. 211 of 2011, 212 of 2011 as well as the Judgment and

Award dated 29.03.2012 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 771 of 2009,

passed by the learned Reference Court, are modified.

(iii) The claimants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.250/-

per sq. mtr. in respect of the acquired lands, after giving effect to a

deduction of 32% in respect of the acquired area.

(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.
9-FA-435-2014.odt
8

(v) The claimants shall be entitled to interest under Sections 28 and 34

of the Act strictly in accordance with the law laid down by the Full Bench of

this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra).

(vi) The amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be

duly adjusted.

(vii) The appellant-claimants shall pay the deficit court fees on the

enhanced compensation, if any.

(viii) The claimants shall not be entitled to statutory benefits and interest

for the period of delay, if any,

(ix) The rest of the Judgments and Awards passed by the learned

Reference Court in the aforesaid Land Acquisition References shall remain

unaltered.

(x) The modified awards shall be drawn accordingly.

(xi) Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE

S P Rane

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…