Bombay High Court
DEORAM ZIPA PATILversusSPECIAL LAND ACQ OFFICER and ANR
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The court held that the present appeals are to be disposed of in terms of the earlier judgment in FA No. 1210/12, granting the claimants enhanced compensation and statutory benefits while dismissing the acquiring body’s appeal.
Summary
The High Court considered appeals concerning lands acquired for the MIDC Dhule project. The claimants argued that their case was identical to a previously decided matter (FA No. 1210/12) and sought enhanced compensation and statutory benefits. The court accepted that the controversy was the same as the earlier judgment and ordered the appeals to be disposed of in accordance with that decision. It dismissed the acquiring body’s appeal, partly allowed the claimants’ cross‑objection and appeal, and fixed the market value of the land at Rs 2,60,000 per hectare. The claimants were awarded all consequential statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and interest under Section 34 as per the State of Maharashtra v. Kailas Shiva Rangari judgment, with certain limitations on delayed‑interest claims. The court also discharged any bank guarantees, directed payment of deficit court fees, and allowed the withdrawing of deposits by the acquiring body upon compliance with procedural requirements.
Issues considered
- The whether the present controversy is identical to that decided in FA No. 1210/12
- Entitlement of claimants to enhanced compensation for the acquired land
- Entitlement to statutory benefits and interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
- Whether interest for the delayed period should be awarded
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 34
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- market value
- interest
- statutory benefits
- cross objection
- appeal
- bank guarantee
- court fees
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:40620
FA 1258/05 & anr.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
50 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1258 OF 2005
DEORAM ZIPA PATIL
VERSUS
SPECIAL LAND ACQ OFFICER AND ANR
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A.B. Kale
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.N. Morampalle
Advocate for Respondent 3 : Mr. S.S. Dande
...
81 X-OBJECTION NO. 288 OF 2026
IN FA/740/2012
BALIRAM MULCHAND PATIL, DIED THR. L.RS. SHRIKRISHAN AND ORS
VERSUS
THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, M.I.D.C. NASHIK AND ORS
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 740 OF 2012
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11370 OF 2019 IN FA/740/2012
THE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, MIDC, NASIK
VERSUS
BALIRAM MULCHAND PATIL, DIED THR. L.RS. SHRIKRISHAN AND ORS
…
Advocate for appellant/acquiring body : Mr. S.S.Dande
Advocate for X-objectioner/claimant : Mr. A.B. Kale
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. A.D. Wange
…
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
Dated : August 31, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. The present appeals arises out of the Judgment and Award dated
9.8.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhule in LAR
No. 80/1998 and judgment and award dated 30.3.2011 passed by the Jt.
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhule in LAR No. 32/1998, respectively.
3. The learned counsel for the acquiring body and original claimants
FA 1258/05 & anr.
2
submits that the lands of the claimants were acquired from the same
village, for the same public purpose i.e. M.I.D.C. Dhule, and under the same
notification as involved in the First Appeal No. 1210/2012 (The Divisional
Officer, M.I.D.C., Nashik Vs. Yadav Bhivsan Patil And Others) and other
connected matters dated 28.7.2026. It is, therefore, contended that the
controversy involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the
judgment and order in FA No. 1210/12 (supra), and consequently, the
present appeals deserve to be disposed of in terms thereof. The learned
A.G.P. appearing for respondent/State fairly concedes the aforesaid position.
4. Having considered the submissions advanced by the 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 in FA No. 1210/12 (supra), I see no reason to take a different
view. The present appeal, therefore, deserves to be disposed of in terms of
the said judgment and order. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
(i) First Appeal No. 740/2012 preferred by the appellant/acquiring body
is dismissed.
(ii) Cross Objection No. 288/2026 in FA No. 740/2012 and First Appeal
No. 1258/2005 preferred by the claimants are partly allowed.
(iii) The market value of the acquired lands is enhanced and determined
at Rs.2,60,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty Thousand only) per Hectare.
(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.
FA 1258/05 & anr.
3
(v) The claimants shall also be entitled to interest under Section 34 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, strictly in accordance with the Full Bench
judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari
2016 (3) Mh.L. J. 457.
(vi) The claimants shall not be entitled to interest for the delayed period,
if any, in accordance with the orders passed in the respective matters.
(vii) Save and except the above modification in the quantum of
compensation, the impugned Judgments and Awards passed by the learned
Reference Court shall remain unaltered.
(viii) The Bank Guarantees, if any, furnished by the respective claimants
stand discharged.
(ix) The claimants shall pay deficit court fees, if any.
(x) The claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by
the appellant-acquiring body, together with accrued interest, if any, upon
furnishing the usual undertaking to the satisfaction of the Registrar
(Judicial) of this Court.
(xi) Modified award be drawn accordingly.
(xii) Pending Civil Applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )
ssc/
Checking your session…