Bombay High Court
THE EX. ENGINEER, LATUR MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. LATUR THR RAJENDRA GURAPPA HULSURE AND ANRversusSAMBHAJI SHRIRANG SURYAWANSHI
- Disposal
- Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
Holding
The challenge to the enhancement of compensation is rejected; the enhancement is within the permissible four‑fold limit, and interest is to be governed by the Kailash Shiva Rangari judgment.
Summary
The Executive Engineer (Acquiring Body) filed several First Appeals challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by a Reference Court to various claimants under the Land Acquisition Act. The claimants had been awarded Rs.1,71,000 per hectare by the State Level Awarding Officer (SLAO), which the Reference Court enhanced to Rs.2,00,000 per acre, a four‑fold increase. The Acquiring Body argued that the enhancement was excessive and sought to set aside the award, while the claimants relied on a Maharashtra Government Resolution (03.11.2016) and its corrigendum (23.02.2017) permitting such enhancements up to four times the SLAO rate. The Court held that the enhancement fell within the permissible limit and therefore rejected the challenge, but directed that interest on the award be calculated according to the Full Bench judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari (2016). The Court allowed the appeals in part, permitting claimants to withdraw the deposited balance with interest and ordering any excess amount to be returned to the Acquiring Body with interest.
Issues considered
- Whether the Reference Court's enhancement of compensation up to four times the SLAO rate is permissible under the Land Acquisition Act and the Government Resolution.
- Whether the Acquiring Body can successfully challenge the enhanced compensation award.
- How interest on the awarded compensation should be calculated and distributed.
Subjects
- Land Acquisition Act
- compensation enhancement
- government resolution
- interest calculation
- first appeal
- partial allowance
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:41991
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO.1104 OF 2019
The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
Thr Rajendra Gurappa Hulsure and Anr .. Appellants
Versus
Ganpati Rajaram Mane
(Since deceased) Through his LRs
Govindrao and Anr .. Respondents
…..
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.1103 OF 2019
The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
Thr Rajendra Gurappa Hulsure and Anr .. Appellants
Versus
Bhagwat Maruti Suryawanshi
(Since deceased) Through his LRs
Sushilabai and Others .. Respondents
…..
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.1099 OF 2019
The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
Thr Rajendra Gurappa Hulsure and Anr .. Appellants
Versus
Venkat Maruti Suryavanshi .. Respondent
…..
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13791/2021
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.1099 OF 2019
…..
2
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.1100 OF 2019
The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
Thr Rajendra Gurappa Hulsure and Anr .. Appellants
Versus
Angad Dnyanoba Mane .. Respondent
…..
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.1101 OF 2019
The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
Thr Rajendra Gurappa Hulsure and Anr .. Appellants
Versus
Sambhaji Shrirang Suryawanshi (Died)
Thr LRs
Krushna and Others .. Respondents
…..
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.1102 OF 2019
The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur
Thr Rajendra Gurappa Hulsure and Anr .. Appellants
Versus
Govind Maruti Suryawanshi .. Respondent
…..
In all the matters :
Shri. Shyam C. Arora, Advocate for the Appellants
Shri. V. D. Gunale, Advocate for the Respondents
Shri. S. N. Kendre, AGP for the State.
…..
3
CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
Dated : SEPTEMBER 07, 2026
FINAL ORDER :-
. Heard Shri. Arora, the learned Advocate for the Appellants -
Acquiring Body and Shri. V. D. Gunale, the learned Advocate for the
Respondents – Claimants.
2. The learned Advocate for the Respondents–Claimants has
tendered across the Bar a copy containing necessary particulars in
respect of the First Appeals. The same is taken on record and marked
Exhibit ‘A’ for the purpose of identification. The particulars set out in
Exhibit ‘A’ are reproduced below:
LAR
SUR ADM SLAO REF
FA NO. VEY AREA AWARD COURT CLAIMED RATE
NO.
NO. AWARD
1099/19 305/05 6 15-R 1,71,000/- 2,00,000/- 1,50,000/- for Dry Land
Per Hectare Per Acre 3,00,000/- per Acre for
irrigated land
1101/19 165/06 10 45-R 1,71,000/- 2,00,000/- 1,50,000/- for Dry Land
Per Hectare Per Acre 3,00,000/- per Acre for
irrigated land
1100/19 168/05 25 32-R 1,71,000/- 2,00,000/- 1,50,000/- for Dry Land
Per Hectare Per Acre 3,00,000/- per Acre for
irrigated land
1102/19 172/05 6 25-R 1,71,000/- 2,00,000/- 1,50,000/- for Dry Land
Per Hectare Per Acre 3,00,000/- per Acre for
irrigated land
1104/19 176/05 26 28-R 1,71,000/- 2,00,000/- 1,50,000/- for Dry Land
Per Hectare Per Acre 3,00,000/- per Acre for
irrigated land
1103/19 401/06 25 30-R 1,71,000/- 2,00,000/- 1,50,000/- for Dry Land
Per Hectare Per Acre 3,00,000/- per Acre for
irrigated land
4
3. Mr. Arora, the learned Advocate for the Appellants / Acquiring
Body submits that being aggrieved by the excessive quantum of
compensation granted by the learned Reference Court, the Appellant /
Acquiring Body has filed these First Appeals. He submits that the
evidence tendered by the Respondents - Claimants before the learned
Reference Court was insufficient to enhance the compensation, however
the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation.
4. Shri. Gunale, the learned Advocate for the Respondents –
Claimants submits that the SLAO determined the compensation at the
rate of Rs.1,71,000/- per Hectare. The learned Reference Court
enhanced the compensation from Rs.1,71,000/- per Hectare to
Rs.2,00,000/- per Acre. The enhancement by the learned Reference
Court is within four times the rate determined by the SLAO. There is
policy decision by the Government of Maharashtra by way of
Government Resolution dated 03.11.2016 and Corrigendum dated
23.02.2017, by which decision is taken not to challenge the Award
under the L.A. Act wherein the enhancement is up to four (4) times and
the subject matter is covered by the said policy decision. He submits
that, the cause in the Appeals does not survive any longer.
5. Mr. Arora, the learned Advocate for the Appellants - Acquiring
Body graciously agrees to this submission on facts that the enhancement
granted by the learned Reference Court is within four times the rate
5
granted by the SLAO. However, he submits that the interest part ought
to be governed by the Judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this
Court in State of Maharashtra V/s Kailash Shiva Rangari reported in
2016 (4) ALL MR 513. He further submits that the Acquiring Body has
deposited the entire payable award amount together with interest in this
Court. He also submits that some part of deposited amount is already
withdrawn by the Respondents - Claimants. He further submits that
after calculating the interest as per Kailash Shiva Rangari’s (supra) case,
the Acquiring Body be permitted to withdraw the excess amount, if any.
6. Having regard to the aforesaid, the Appeals can be disposed of at
the stage of admission itself. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
(A) In view of the Government Resolution dated 03.11.2016,
Corrigendum dated 23.02.2017 and enhancement proportion, the First
Appeals are partly allowed.
(B) The challenge raised by the Appellants–Acquiring Body to the
enhancement in compensation granted by the learned Reference Court is
rejected.
(C) The interest part shall be governed as per Judgment of the Full
Bench of this Court in the case of Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra).
(D) The Respondents - Claimants are permitted to withdraw the
balance amount deposited by the Appellants - Acquiring Body in this
Court, along with the accrued interest thereon, if any.
6
(E) Needless to mention that after calculating the interest as per the
Kailash Shiva Rangari’s (supra) case the excess amount, if any, shall be
returned to the Appellants - Acquiring Body along with interest.
(F) Pending Civil Applications stand disposed of.
( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )
GGP
Checking your session…