Bombay High Court

NIWARTI GANPATI SHINDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Disposal: PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED

Holding

The Court held that the acquired land is irrigated, entitlement is Rs.3,33,000 per hectare, no separate well compensation is allowed, interest is payable under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the earlier decision on market value applies.

Summary

The appellant, Niwarti Ganpati Shinde (legal representative of a deceased claimant), appealed against the State of Maharashtra challenging the compensation awarded for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The dispute centered on whether the land should be treated as irrigated, the appropriate per‑hectare compensation rate, and whether a separate payment for a well was permissible. The High Court noted that the matter was identical to a prior decision (First Appeal No.303 of 2006) which fixed the market value of the dry land at Rs.1,66,600 per hectare. Applying that precedent, the Court held the land to be irrigated and fixed compensation at Rs.3,33,000 per hectare, disallowing any separate well compensation and directing that the earlier well award be deducted. The Court also affirmed entitlement to statutory benefits and interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, but denied interest for any delay. Consequently, the impugned judgment and award were partially modified.

Issues considered

Whether the acquired land should be classified as irrigated land for compensation purposes
What is the appropriate compensation rate per hectare for the acquired land
Whether a separate compensation for the well is permissible
Whether the appellant is entitled to interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Whether interest for the period of delay is payable
Whether the earlier decision in First Appeal No.303 of 2006 is binding on the present appeal

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 28, 34

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation
irrigated land
market value
interest
statutory benefits
well compensation
delay condonation

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41296
904-FA-1146-2008.odt
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

904 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1146 OF 2008
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10159 OF 2026 IN FA/1146/2008

Niwarti Ganpati Shinde
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Another

……
Mr. B.K. Pawar, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. A.D. Wange, AGP for Respondent No.1-State
……

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 04 SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :

ORDER IN CA/10159 OF 2026:

1. The present Civil Application is filed for bringing the legal

representative of deceased applicant/claimant, Niwarati S/o Ganpati

Shinde, on record by condoning the delay of 2928 days caused in bringing

the legal representative of the deceased applicant/claimant on record.

2. Considering the averments made in the application, the application

is allowed. The delay caused in bringing the legal representative of the

deceased applicant/claimant on record is condoned. Abatement, if any, is set

aside. The legal representative be brought on record.

3. Amendment be carried out accordingly.
904-FA-1146-2008.odt
2

ORDER IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1446 OF 2008:

4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

5. The present appeal arises out of the impugned Judgment and Award

dated 30.07.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur,

in Land Acquisition Reference No.23 of 2004.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned AGP

submit that the controversy involved in the present appeal is squarely

covered by the order dated 05.08.2026 passed by this Court in First Appeal

No.303 of 2006, as the land of the appellant was acquired from the same

village, i.e. Lamjana, for the same public purpose, i.e. construction of

Percolation Tank at village Lamjana, Taluka Ausa, District Latur, and under

the very same notification as involved in the said appeal. They, therefore,

submit that the present appeal may also be disposed of in terms of the said

order.

7. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for

the respective parties, and in view of the admitted position that the

controversy involved in the present appeal is identical to the one decided by

this Court by order dated 05.08.2026 in First Appeal No.303 of 2006,

wherein this Court determined the market value of the acquired dry land at

the rate of Rs.1,66,600/- per Hectare, I see no reason to take a different

view. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be disposed of in terms of
904-FA-1146-2008.odt
3

the said order.

8. In the present appeal, the learned Reference Court has treated the

acquired land as irrigated land. Therefore, the appellant-claimant is entitled

to compensation for the acquired irrigated/bagayat land at the rate of

Rs.3,33,200/- per Hectare, which is rounded off to Rs.3,33,000/- per

Hectare. However, since the acquired land is irrigated land, the appellant-

claimant is not entitled to separate compensation towards the well.

Accordingly, the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer

towards the well, along with the interest accrued thereon, shall be deducted

from the enhanced compensation. Hence, the following order:

ORDER

(i) The First Appeal is partly allowed.

(ii) The impugned Judgment and Award dated 30.07.2007 passed by the

learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, in Land Acquisition Reference

No.23 of 2004 is modified to the aforesaid extent.

(iii) The appellant-claimant is held entitled to receive compensation for

the acquired irrigated/bagayat land at the rate of Rs.3,33,000/- per Hectare.

(iv) Since the acquired land has been treated as irrigated land, the

appellant-claimant shall not be entitled to separate compensation towards

the well. The amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer
904-FA-1146-2008.odt
4

towards the well, along with the interest accrued thereon, shall accordingly

be deducted from the enhanced compensation.

(v) The appellant-claimant shall be entitled to all statutory benefits

under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in accordance with law.

(vi) The appellant-claimant shall be entitled to interest under Sections 28

and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, strictly in accordance with the

Full Bench decision of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailas Shiva

Rangari, 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457.

(vii) The appellant-claimant shall not be entitled to interest for the period

of delay, if any.

(viii) The modified award be drawn accordingly.

(ix) The remaining part of the Judgment and Award passed by the

learned Reference Court shall remain unaltered.

(x) The appellant-claimant shall pay the deficit Court fees, if any, on the

enhanced compensation.

[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
S P Rane

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…