Bombay High Court
GODHAVARI MARATHWADA IRRIGATION DEVP. CORP.versusNAIMOEDDIN HAMID MIYA AND ORS
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The court held that the earlier decision, while not binding, is a guiding principle and the claimants are entitled to compensation at Rs 150,000 per hectare.
Summary
The High Court examined acquisition proceedings initiated in 2000 for lands needed for the Renapur‑Sudha Project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs 71,500 per hectare, which the reference court enhanced to Rs 136,500 per hectare. The claimants argued that, in a similar reference (LAR No. 24/2003) for the same project, the court had awarded Rs 150,000 per hectare and therefore they should receive the same rate. The court held that although the earlier decision was not binding, it was a persuasive guide for determining market value and granted the claimants Rs 150,000 per hectare, along with interest and statutory benefits. The appeals filed by the acquiring corporation were dismissed, while the claimants' appeals were partly allowed and the reference court’s award was modified accordingly.
Issues considered
- Whether the compensation awarded by the reference court can be further increased to match the rate granted in a prior reference for the same project but a different village.
- Whether the acquiring body’s appeal should be dismissed based on the State Government’s policy of not challenging reference awards that are within four times the SLAO award.
- Whether the earlier decision in LAR No. 24/2003 is binding precedent for the present case.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 18, 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- reference court
- market value
- precedent
- interest
- statutory benefits
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:37336
FA 1081/15 & Ors.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
7 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1081 OF 2015
GODHAVARI MARATHWADA IRRIGATION DEVP. CORP.
VERSUS
NAIMOEDDIN HAMID MIYA AND ORS
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. R.D. Biradar
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. D.R. Korde
Advocate for Respondent 1 : Mr. Y.P. Deshmukh
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2538 OF 2011
NAIMOEDDIN HAMID MIYA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAH AND ORS
…
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Y.P. Deshmukh
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. D.R. Korde
Advocate for Respondent 3 : Mr. R.D. Biradar
…
58 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1271 OF 2015
GODHAVARI MARATHWADA IRRIGATION DEVP. CORP.
VERSUS
NASIROEDDIN HAMID MIYA AND ORS
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. R.D. Biradar
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. B.A. Shinde
Advocate for Respondent 1 : Mr. Y.P. Deshmukh
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2537 OF 2011
NASIRODDIN HAMID MIYA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAH AND ORS
…
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Y.P. Deshmukh
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. B.A. Shinde
Advocate for Respondent 3 : Mr. R.D. Biradar
…
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
Dated : August 17, 2026
FA 1081/15 & Ors.
2
PER COURT :-
1. As the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 2000, heard
finally with the consent of learned counsel for respective parties.
2. By these appeals, the original claimants as well as the acquiring body
assail the judgments and awards dated 7.6.2010 passed by the learned Jt.
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nanded in LAR Nos. 36 and 40 of 2003.
3. As far as the appeals filed by the the acquiring body are concerned,
the learned counsel for the acquiring body submits that the compensation
enhanced by the learned Reference Court does not exceed four times the
amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, in view
of the aforesaid submissions and having regard to the policy decision of the
State Government contained in Government Resolution
No.Sankirna-2014/Prak.Kra.4/Bham-1/A-4 dated 03.11.2016 with
Corrigendum dated 23.02.2017 and 13.08.2018 to the said Government
Resolution, took a decision not to challenge the reference, if compensation
is enhanced only upto four times. Hence, the appeals filed by the acquiring
body i.e. FA Nos. 1081 and 1271 of 2015 needs to be dismissed.
4. In the appeals filed by the original claimant, it is submitted that the
lands of the claimants admeasuring 1 H. 77 R. and 95 R. from Gat No. 141
were acquired for Renapur-Sudha Project. Notification under section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act was published in Government Gazette on 17.2.2000.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) has published the award on
30.5.2001 and has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.71,500/- per H.
for the acquired lands and Rs. 29,335/- for teakwood trees. The claimants
received the amount under protest. Being dissatisfied with the award of
SLAO, the claimants have filed reference under section 18 of the Act. After
FA 1081/15 & Ors.
3
considering the evidence led by the respective parties, the learned
reference court has enhanced the compensation for the acquired lands at
the rate of Rs.1,36,500/- per H. Being aggrieved by the judgments and
awards of the learned reference court, the original claimants filed the
present appeals.
5. The learned counsel for original claimants has tendered a copy of
order dated 9.7.2009 passed by the 2 nd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Nanded in LAR No. 24/2003 (Pundlik s/o. Ganpati Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and Ors.) and submits that though the above reference arises
from the land acquired from different village, however, from the same
notification and for the same project i.e. Renapur- Sudha Project, the
learned reference court has enhanced the compensation at the rate of
Rs.1,50,000/- per H. He therefore submits that the claimants in the present
case are also entitled to receive the same rate.
6. Per contra, Mr. R.D. Biradar, learned counsel for acquiring body
vehemently opposed for granting the relief as was granted in LAR No.
24/2003 (supra) on the ground that the said reference was filed in respect
of the land from other village, though arises from the same notification and
for the same project. He submits that the said decision cannot be
considered as binding precedent and it is incumbent upon the claimants to
establish their claim by leading oral as well as documentary evidence. He
submits that after considering the evidence on record in the present case,
the learned reference court has rightly determined the compensation. In
addition, he submits that in respect of teakwood trees separate amount has
been granted by the reference court and therefore, the claimants are not
entitled to receive the compensation as was granted in LAR No. 24/2003.
FA 1081/15 & Ors.
4
He therefore prays to dismiss the appeals filed by the claimants.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, with their
assistance I have gone through the record and proceeding and impugned
judgments and awards of the reference court. There is no dispute about the
fact that by issuing section 4 notification though the lands were acquired
from the different villages for the same project i.e. Renapur- Sudha Project.
Though the order passed in LAR No. 24/2003 (supra) cannot be considered
as binding principal, but the same can be considered as guiding principle to
determine the market value of the acquired lands in the present appeals.
For the same project, the reference court has determined the rate of
Rs.1,50,000/- per H. in LAR No. 24/2003 though the land was acquired
from different village. This Court considering decision in LAR No. 24/2003,
hold that though the lands were acquired from the different villages for the
same project under the same notification, in the appeals filed by the
claimants rate of Rs.1,50,000/- per H. needs to be granted as was granted
in LAR No. 24/2003. Hence, I pass the following order.
ORDER
(1) The appeals filed by the acquiring body are dismissed.
(2) The appeals filed by the original claimants are partly allowed.
(3) The original claimants are entitled to receive rate of Rs.1,50,000/-
per H. for their acquired lands.
(4) The claimants are entitled to receive interest and other statutory
benefits 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, 2016 (4) Mh.L.J. 457.
(5) The judgment and award passed by the reference court is modified
accordingly.
FA 1081/15 & Ors.
5
(6) Claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount, if any, deposited by
the acquiring body in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this
Court in case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari (supra).
(7) Pending civil applications, if any, stand disposed of.
( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )
ssc/
Checking your session…