Bombay High Court
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANRversusYASHWANT GOVIND DALAL
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- NEERAJ P DHOTE
Holding
The claimants' lands, acquired for the same earthquake rehabilitation project and situated in an adjoining village, are entitled to the same rate of compensation of Rs.20 per sq. ft. as awarded in similar acquisitions, on the ground of parity; the State's appeals are dismissed and the cross-objections are partly allowed.
Summary
The State acquired lands at village Udatpur, Taluka Lohara, District Osmanabad, for rehabilitation of earthquake-affected persons. Section 4 notification was issued on 07.04.1994 and the award was declared on 23.07.1996. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs.17,300 per hectare, which the Reference Court enhanced to Rs.4000 per R. The State appealed against the enhancement, while the claimants filed cross-objections seeking parity with other lands acquired for the same project where this Court had awarded Rs.20 per sq. ft. The State opposed parity on the ground that the other lands were in different villages and had different notification dates and awards. The Court found that the acquisitions were for the same project, the villages were adjoining (Tawashigad about 1.5 km from Udatpur), and there was a consistent view awarding Rs.20 per sq. ft., so denying the same rate would be discriminatory. The Court dismissed the State's appeals and partly allowed the cross-objections, granting enhanced compensation at Rs.20 per sq. ft. but denying interest and statutory benefits for the delayed period, and modified the Reference Court's award accordingly.
Issues considered
- Whether the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation at Rs.20 per sq. ft. on the ground of parity with similarly situated lands acquired for the same project?
- Whether the difference in villages and the dates of Section 4 notifications and awards precludes the grant of parity?
- Whether the State's appeals against the Reference Court's enhancement are liable to be dismissed?
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act — s. 4
Subjects
- Land Acquisition
- Compensation
- Parity
- Enhanced Compensation
- Earthquake Rehabilitation
- Adjoining Village
- Cross-Objections
- Interest
- Statutory Benefits
- Deficit Court Fee
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:31629
19-Three Appeals.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
19 FIRST APPEAL NO.1268 OF 2021
The State of Maharashtra
Through The Collector, Osmanabad and Anr. ….Appellants
VERSUS
Yashwant S/o Govind Dalal …..Respondent
….
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO.242 OF 2026
IN FA/1268/2021
Yashwant S/o Govind Dalal ..… Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
Through The Collector, Osmanabad and Anr. …. Respondents
….
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.1269 OF 2021
The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Osmanabad and Anr. ….Appellants
VERSUS
Malhari Shankar Waghmare (Died)
Through Legal Heirs
1) Kalawati Malhari Waghmare and Ors. …..Respondents
….
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO.244 OF 2026
IN FA/1269/2021
Malhari Shankar Waghmare (Died)
Through Legal Heirs
1) Kalawati Malhari Waghmare and Ors. ..… Appellants
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Osmanabad And Anr. …. Respondents
…..
1
19-Three Appeals.odt
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.1341 OF 2023
The State of Maharashtra
Through The Collector, Osmanabad and Anr. ….Appellants
VERSUS
Hariba S/o Yada Dalal
Died Through LRs.
1) Santosh s/o Hariba Dalal and Anr. …..Respondents
….
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO.246 OF 2026
IN FA/1341/2023
Hariba S/o Yada Dalal
Died Through LRs.
1) Santosh s/o Hariba Dalal and Anr. ..… Appellants
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Osmanabad and Anr. …. Respondents
….
ALONG WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3579 OF 2021 IN FA/12681/2021
_____________________________________________________________
Appearance in all matters :-
Mr. K. N. Lokhande, AGP for the Appellants – State
Mr. V. V. Ingale, Advocate for the Respondents / Claimants
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
DATE : 27.07.2026
COMMON ORDER :
1. All these Appeals arise out of common Judgment dated
17.06.2014, passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division,
Omerga, in Land Acquisition Reference (LAR) Nos.625/2005,
440/2005 and 456/2005. As common submissions are advanced,
these Appeals by the State and the Cross-objections by the
Claimants are decided by this common order.
2
19-Three Appeals.odt
2. Heard the learned AGP for the State and the learned
Advocate for the Claimants.
3. The Claimants’ lands situated at village – Udatpur, Taluka –
Lohara, District – Osmanabad, is acquired for the purpose of
‘Rehabilitation of Earthquake-affected Persons’. Section 4
notification was issued on 07.04.1994 and the Award was declared
on 23.07.1996. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short ‘the
SLA’) awarded the compensation @ Rs.17,300/- per hectare. The
learned Reference Court enhanced the same to Rs.4000/- per R.
The State as well as the Claimants have preferred the Appeals.
4. According to the learned Advocate for the Claimants, this
Court has decided the Appeals, wherein the lands from different
village were acquired for the self-same project and this Court
enhanced the rate to Rs.20/- per sq. ft. He tenders across the bar
copies of the order dated 16.12.2025 in First Appeal No.2539/2021,
the order dated 11.03.2026 in a group of First Appeals, out of
which one was First Appeal No.2367/2021 and the order dated
15.06.2026 in First Appeal No.12/2018 in support of his
contentions. The same are taken on record and marked as ‘Exhibit
– 1’ for identification. He submits that, the Claimants be awarded
the same rate on the ground of parity.
4. It is submitted by the learned AGP for the State that, Section
4 notification in those First Appeals, which are decided by this
Court, were issued on different dates and different awards came to
be passed, and therefore no parity would be available to the
Claimants. He further submits that, the SLAO considered the sale
3
19-Three Appeals.odt
instance from the same village and had rightly determined the rate
of compensation. The lands of the present Claimants situated in
village – Udatpur and the lands, which were the subject matter of
the acquisition in the said Appeals, were situated in different
villages. He submits that, the Appeals of the State be allowed and
the Cross-objections of the Claimants be dismissed.
6. Perusal of the said orders of this Court goes to show that, the
lands, which were the subject matter of those Appeals, were
acquired for the same purpose, i.e. Rehabilitation of Earthquake-
affected Person. The lands in those Appeals were situated in village
– Sastur, Tawashigad, Koral and Salegaon. In the order dated
11.03.2026, there is observation in Paragraph No.6 that, Village –
Tawashigad is adjoining to the villages – Koral and Salegaon. The
learned Advocate for the Claimants has placed on record the copy
of communication dated 15.06.2026 issued by the Sub-Divisional
Engineer, Zilla Parishad, Dharashiv to show that, the distance
between village – Tawashigad and Udatpur was one and half (1 ½)
kilometer.
7. In view of the above material on record, it is clear that, the
village, wherein the Claimants’ lands were situated, was the
adjoining village to the villages from where the lands were
acquired for the same project. It would not be out of place to
reproduce the observation in Paragraph No.5 from the order dated
16.12.2025 in First Appeal No.2539/2021, which reads as under :
“5. I have considered rival submissions of the parties. For the self-
same purpose, the lands from different villages have been acquired.
In the present case, it was acquired from village Tawashigad. I am
guided by law laid down by Supreme Court in the matter of Ali
Mohammed Beigh and others Vs. State of J. & K. [AIR 2017
4
19-Three Appeals.odt
SC 1518] and Ningappa Thotappa Angadi (Dead) through
Legal Representatives Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer
and another [(2002) 19 Supreme Court Cases 599] as well as
Hanmabai w/o Iranna Patil (Deceased Through her LR’s)
Dattatraya Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra & another [2009
(4) Mh.L.J.]. It is rightly pointed out that the acquiring body had
decided not to prefer appeal in the matter granting rate of Rs.20/-
per Sq. Ft. It would be discriminatory to deprive the present
appellants from the same rate. There is consistent view taken by the
Co-ordinate Benches in awarding the rate. It is desirable to allow
first appeal partly.”
8. In view of the above undisputed factual aspects of the
matters, the Claimants would be entitled for the same rate of
compensation @ Rs.20/- per sq. ft. on the ground of parity. Hence,
the following order :
ORDER
[a] The Appeals filed by the State are dismissed.
[b] The Cross-objections filed by the Claimants are
partly allowed.
[c] The Claimants shall be entitled for the
enhanced compensation @ Rs.20/- per sq. ft.
[d] The Claimants shall not be entitled for the
interest and statutory benefits for the delayed
period.
[e] The Claimants shall pay the deficit court fee.
[f] The Award passed by the learned Reference
Court stands modified to the above extent.
[g] The amount deposited by the State in this Court
is permitted to be withdrawn along with
interest accrued thereon.
5
19-Three Appeals.odt
[h] The Record and Proceeding (R & P) be sent back
to the learned Reference Court.
[i] Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand
disposed off accordingly.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]
Sameer/July-2026
6
Checking your session…