THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MEDIUM PROJECT K.K.V.M. DIVISION AT OSMANABADversusVITHOBA MAHADU MANE DIED THRO. L.RS SMT. BHAMABAI L.RS BIBHISHAN L.RS SMT. TULSABAI BIBHISHAN

2026:BHC-AUG:6691




                                               1                          56 fa 1399.25

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1399 OF 2025

                         The Executive Engineer, Medium
                         Project K.K.V.M. Division at
                         Osmanabad                                .. Appellant
                               Versus
                         Sitaram Mahadu Mane
                         Since deceased through his L.Rs.
                         Jagannath Sitaram Mane                   ..   Respondents

                    Shri Gulab B. Rajale, Advocate for the Appellant.
                    Ms. Manisha S. Dalave, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1A
                    through V.C.
                    Shri Annasaheb R. Barate for the Respondent Nos. 2.1 to 2.3 & 4.
                    Shri S. V. Hange, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 7 and 8.

                                            WITH
                                 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1396 OF 2025

                         The Executive Engineer, Medium
                         Project K.K.V.M. Division at
                         Osmanabad                                .. Appellant

                               Versus

                         Vithoba Mahadu Mane
                         Since deceased through his L.Rs.
                         Smt. Bhamabai Mane since deceased
                         through her L.Rs. Bibhishan died
                         through L.Rs. Tulsabai Bibishan Mane     ..   Respondents

                    Shri Gulab B. Rajale, Advocate for the Appellant.
                    Shri Annasaheb R. Barate, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 2.1
                    to 2.3 & 4.
                    Shri S. V. Hange, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7.
                             2                           56 fa 1399.25

                         WITH
              FIRST APPEAL NO. 1394 OF 2025

      The Executive Engineer, Medium
      Project K.K.V.M. Division at
      Osmanabad                                  .. Appellant

            Versus

      Sadashiv Narayan Mule                      ..   Respondents


Shri Gulab B. Rajale, Advocate for the Appellant.
Shri V. V. Ingale, Advocate h/f Shri Estling S. Murge, Advocate
for the Respondent No. 1.
Shri S. V. Hange, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.


                  CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
                   DATE : 12TH FEBRUARY, 2026.

FINAL ORDER :


.     Heard both sides finally.


2.    The acquiring body is challenging common judgment and
award dated 03.03.2022 passed in different land acquisition
references. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded rate of
Rs. 37,000/- per hectare, which is enhanced by the Reference
Court to Rs. 76,000/- per acre (Rs. 1,90,000/- per hectare). In this
backdrop learned counsel for the acquiring body submits that the
enhancement is exorbitant and arbitrary. It is further submitted
that the additional component U/Sec. 23(1A) of the Land
Acquisition Act (for the sake of brevity and convenience
                             3                         56 fa 1399.25

hereinafter referred as to the “L. A. Act”) has been granted. It is
further submitted that reliance on the decision rendered in
earlier references is uncalled for.   The impugned judgment is
perverse because claimants were unable to make out a case for
enhancement.


3.    Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the private
parties – claimants support impugned award. It is submitted
that the possession was taken on 27.05.1997. Award was passed
on 28.03.2005 and they were unable to utilize the land during the
period for which they are entitled for rental compensation. It is
further submitted that the Reference Court has relied upon the
rates awarded in L. A. R. No. 1151 of 2015 and L. A. R. No. 1152
of 2015, which is appropriate.


4.    I have considered rival submissions of the parties.
Notification U/Sec. 4 of the L. A. Act was issued on 04.02.1998.
Award was passed on 28.03.2005. The possession was taken over
from the claimant on 27.05.1997.        There is huge time gap
between handing over possession and passing of the award. The
respondents – claimants are entitled to rental compensation
during this period as per the policies floated by the State
Government. It would be open for them to take recourse to the
appropriate proceedings for the rental compensation.


5.    Impugned judgment shows that while placing reliance on
the judgment rendered in L. A. R. No. 1151 of 2015 and L. A. R.
                              4                         56 fa 1399.25

No. 1152 of 2015 comparable assessment has been made. Those
acquisition proceedings are arising out of common award and for
the same project. It has not been pointed out that the judgments
in those matters suffered any modification by the higher forum.
The rate fixed by the Reference Court to the tune of Rs. 76,000/-
per hectare is adequate and appropriate and no interference is
called for.    I find that no case is made out to cause any
interference in the exercise undertaken by the Reference Court.


6.      The objection in respect of interest of 12% U/Sec. 23(1A) of
the L. A. Act is concerned, a useful reference can be made to the
common judgment dated 16.08.2024 passed by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 1543 of 2023 in the
matter of The M.K.V.D.C. through Executive Engineer, Sina
Kolegaon Project Paranda and others Vs. Bhagwan Gangaram
Kolekar with other connected matters. It has been reiterated in
para No. 15 of the judgment that starting point for granting
interest at the rate of 12% U/Sec. 23(1A) of the L. A. Act would be
from the date of notification till the award, which is consistent
view.    I find no merit in the objection raised by the learned
counsel for the acquiring body.


7.      For the reasons stated above, I find no merit in the first
appeals. First appeals are dismissed. However, it is made clear
that the respondents – claimants are at liberty to take recourse
to appropriate remedy for the benefit of rental compensation.
                            5                        56 fa 1399.25

8.    Amount deposited by the appellant – acquiring body in this
Court shall be disbursed to the respondents – claimants with
accrued interest as per their share and entitlement. Record and
proceedings shall be sent back.



                             [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]


bsb/Feb. 26