Bombay High Court

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PATBANDHARE PROJECT, OMERGA AND OTHERSversusGOVIND BABURAO PATIL

Disposal: PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED

Holding

The Court held that the controversy is identical to that decided in First Appeal No. 958 of 2013 and disposed of the appeals and cross‑objections in accordance with that judgment, modifying the award as specified.

Summary

The case concerned lands acquired from village Chendkal for the Tall Canal of Storage Tank Bhiksarsangvi, where the original judgment and award dated 17 January 2014 were challenged by the acquiring body and cross‑objections were filed by the claimants. Both parties argued that the controversy had already been decided in First Appeal No. 958 of 2013, order dated 3 August 2026, which dealt with the same acquisition and public purpose. The Court accepted the admitted position that the matters were identical and therefore resolved the present appeals and cross‑objections in accordance with that earlier decision. It modified the award, fixing compensation at Rs 4,400 per R for irrigated lands, Rs 3,300 per R for semi‑irrigated lands and Rs 2,200 per R for dry lands, and granted interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as per the Full Bench ruling in State of Maharashtra v. Kailas Shiva Rangari. The Court ordered payment of statutory benefits, interest, and procedural steps for withdrawal of the enhanced amount, while leaving the remainder of the original award unchanged.

Issues considered

Whether the present appeals and cross‑objections are covered by the earlier judgment in First Appeal No. 958 of 2013.
What compensation rates are applicable to the acquired lands.
Whether the claimants are entitled to interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
How the award should be modified in light of the earlier decision and statutory provisions.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 34

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation
interest
Section 34
award modification
precedent
cross‑objection
appeal

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:43289
8-FA-1157-2017.odt
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

8 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1157 OF 2017

The Executive Engineer, Patbandhare Project, Omerga And Others
VERSUS
Kantabai Suryakant Patil

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1158 OF 2017

The Executive Engineer, Patbandhare Project, Omerga And Others
VERSUS
Govind Baburao Patil

AND
X-OBJECTION NO. 77 OF 2023 IN FA/1157/2017

Kantabai Suryakant Patil (mane)
VERSUS
The Executive Engineer, Patbandhare Project, Omerga And Others

AND
X-OBJECTION NO. 56 OF 2023 IN FA/1158/2017

Govind Baburao Patil
VERSUS
The Ex. Engineer, Patbandhare Pro., Omerga And Others

……
Mr. G. B. Rajale, Advocate for Appellant in both FAs and for Respondent in
X-objections
Mr. V.V. Ingale, Advocate for Respondents in Both FAs and for Applicants in
X-objections
Mr.A.M. Phule, AGP for State
……

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 16 SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
8-FA-1157-2017.odt
2

2. The present appeals and cross-objections arise out of the common

impugned Judgment and Award dated 17.01.2014 passed by the learned

Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga, in Land Acquisition Reference

No.279 of 2008 (Old L.A.R. No.144 of 2005) and Land Acquisition

Reference No.278 of 2008 (Old L.A.R. No.143 of 2005).

3. The learned counsel for the claimants has tendered across the Bar a

copy of the order dated 03.08.2026 passed by this Court in First Appeal

No.958 of 2013 and connected matters. He submits that the lands of the

appellants were acquired from village Chendkal for the same public purpose,

i.e. Tall Canal of Storage Tank Bhiksarsangvi, under the very same

notification as involved in the said appeal. It is, therefore, contended that

the controversy involved in the present appeals is squarely covered by the

order dated 03.08.2026 passed in First Appeal No.958 of 2013 and

connected matters and, consequently, the present appeals as well as the

cross-objections deserve to be disposed of in terms thereof. Learned counsel

Mr. Rajale, appearing for the acquiring body, as well as the learned AGP,

fairly concede the aforesaid position.

4. 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 appeals is identical to the one decided

by this Court in First Appeal No.958 of 2013 and connected matters vide

order dated 03.08.2026, I see no reason to take a different view. The present
8-FA-1157-2017.odt
3

appeals as well as the cross-objections, therefore, deserve to be disposed of

in terms of the said judgment and order. Hence, the following order:

ORDER

(i) The cross-objections filed by the original claimants are partly
allowed.

(ii) The appeals filed by the acquiring body are partly allowed.

(iii) The common impunged Judgment and Award dated 17.01.2014
passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nilanga in Land
Acquisition Reference No.279 of 2008and Land Acquisition Reference
No.278 of 2008 is modified.

(iv) In the cross-objections filed by the claimants, the claimants are
entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs.4,400/- per R for irrigated
lands, Rs.3,300/- per R for semi-irrigated lands and Rs.2,200/- per R for dry
lands, as per the categorization made by the Reference Court.

(v) The claimant shall be entitled to all consequential statutory benefits
on the enhanced compensation in accordance with the provisions of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

(vi) The claimant shall be entitled to interest under Section 34 of the Act,
strictly in accordance with the Full Bench decision in State of Maharashtra
vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457.

(vii) Save and except the above modification, the common impugned
Judgment and Award dated 17.01.2014 shall remain unaltered.
8-FA-1157-2017.odt
4

(viii) The claimants shall pay the deficit court fees, if any, on the enhanced
amount.

(ix) The appellants/claimants are permitted to withdraw the remaining
amount along with the accrued interest, after adjusting the interest
component in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in
State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (4) Mh.L.J. 457
(supra).

(x) At the time of withdrawal of the amount, the Registrar (Judicial)
shall verify all the requisite documents, including the heirship certificate, if
any.

(xi) After payment of the amount to the claimants, if any excess amount
remains, the same shall be paid to the acquiring body along with the
accrued interest thereon.

(xii) The modified award be drawn accordingly.

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

[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
S P Rane

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…