INDRAJIT S/O DADARAO WAGHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE COLLECTOR, JALNA AND ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:9585


                                             1                         8FA854.20.odt


                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              FIRST APPEAL NO. 854 OF 2020
                                         WITH
                           CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1898 OF 2019
                                     IN FA/854/2020
              1.    The Godavari Marathwada Irrigation
                    Development Corporation,
                    Through Executive Engineer,
                    Nimna Dudhana Project, Division at Selu,
                    Now Jalna Irrigation Division, Jalna.

              2.    The State of Maharashtra,
                    Through Collector, Jalna.

              3.    Special Land Acquisition Officer,
                    Jalna, (MIW) Jalna.                            ...Appellants

                          Versus

                    Indrajit Dadarao Wagh                          ...Respondent
                                                 ...
              Advocate for Appellant No. 1 : Mr. Arora Shyam C.
              AGP for Appellant Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. V.S. Badakh
              Advocate for Respondent : Mr. More Kumar Gaurav M.
                                                 …

                                          WITH
                               FIRST APPEAL NO. 1559 OF 2023

                    Indrajit Dadarao Wagh                          ...Appellant

                          Versus

              1.    The State of Maharashtra,
                    Through Collector, Jalna.

              2.    Special Land Acquisition Officer,
                    Jalna, (MIW) Jalna.
                               2                             8FA854.20.odt




3.   The Executive Engineer,
     Lower Dudhana Project, Sailu,
     Dist. Parbhani,
     At present near Motibag, Jalna,
     Tq. & Dist. Jalna.                                   ...Respondents
                                   ...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. M.P. Tripathi
AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. V.S. Badakh
Advocate for Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Arora Shyam C.
                                   …

                                    CORAM : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.

                                    DATE      : 04TH MARCH, 2026

PER COURT :

1.         First Appeal No. 854/2020 is preferred by the acquiring body

to challenge the judgment and award passed by the Civil Judge, Senior

Division, Jalna, dated 22.06.2017, in LAR No. 304/2011.


2.         First Appeal No. 1559/2023 takes an exception at the instance

of the claimant to the same judgment as stated above.


3.         Heard Mr Arora, learned counsel for the acquiring body and

Mr Manish Tripathi, learned counsel for the claimant.


4.         In the First Appeal preferred by the acquiring body, the

following submissions are made by Mr Arora :
                                3                               8FA854.20.odt


      a.     The testimony of the expert ought not to have been taken

      into consideration, and the reference Court should have seen

      whether corroborative evidence was on record.


      b.   Judgment in First Appeal No. 2259/2021 is not a binding

      precedent and, therefore, will have to be tested in this appeal.


5.         In the First Appeal preferred by the claimant, the following

arguments were made :


      a.    The expert has entered the witness box, proved the report,

      and the other witness corroborates his testimony.


      b.   The judgment in First Appeal No. 2259/2021 decides the issue

      regarding the nature of the land and the compensation granted.


6.          The first question is whether First Appeal No. 2259/2021

can be relied upon or not?


7.          The land of the claimant situated in admeasuring 4 H 13 R

and 0.23 R, situated in Gat No. 93 B, Mauje Mapegaon (Bk.), Taluka

Partur, District Jalna, was subjected to acquisition at the hands of the

government and notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition
                                4                            8FA854.20.odt


Act was issued on 07.11.2002.The land in question was acquired for the

Lower Dudhna project.


8.           After the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award

and since claimant was dissatisfied, they preferred reference to Section

18 of land acquisition act, which was forwarded and registered as LAR

No. 304/2011.Civil Judge Senior Division, Jalna, on 22.06.2017, decided

the reference and granted enhanced compensation to the tune of Rs.

10,70,986/- and the interest thereon.


9.         At this stage, it is necessary to mention here that 1 H 30 R

was treated as Hangami Bagayat land and rate was fixed at Rs. 3750/-.

2 H 11 R was treated as Jirayat land and rate was fixed at Rs. 2500/-.

0.27 R was treated as Barmahi Bagayat land and rate was fixed at Rs.

5000/-. 0.23 R was treated as Pot Kharab land and rate was fixed at Rs.

1250/-. Thus, the total area referred to above would come to 3 H 91 R,

whereas the total land acquired was 4 H 36 R.


10.          First Appeal No. 2259/2021 was decided by the coordinate

bench of this Court on 14.11.2025, in which the judgment and award

dated 19.10.2016, passed by the reference Court in LAR No. 830/2011,

was challenged. The Court in that case observed that the chunk of land
                                   5                             8FA854.20.odt


was acquired from the Villages of Satona (Bk.), Maptegaon,

Raniwahegaon, Deola, and Hondegaon by separate notifications. Court

then took into consideration the observation of Hon’ble Apex Court in

the matter of Ali Mohammad Beigh and Others Versus State of J &

K, reported in AIR 2017 SC 1518, and then observed that the village

Satona is adjoining to Mapegaon, hence rate of Rs. 2500/- per R can be

treated as market rate and by escalation, and then the appellants therein

were held entitled to receive Rs. 4426/- per R for their land. Accordingly,

the First Appeal was allowed, and the award was consequently modified.


11.             Both the learned counsels submitted that the rate of Rs.

2500/-, which was mentioned in First Appeal No. 2259/2021, was for

Jirayat land and the same is in the present appeal also. Thus, it is

contended that the claimants are entitled to receive Rs. 4426/- per R for

Jirayat land.


12.             At this stage, it is necessary to mention here that the chunk

of land was acquired for the same purpose, i.e., the Lower Dudhna

project. Consequently, the land was acquired from the villages of Satona

(Bk.), Mapegaon, Raniwahegaon, Deola, and Hondegaon. So far as the

land in the present appeal is concerned, it is situated in the village of

Mapegaon. In First Appeal No. 2259/2021, it has already been held by
                                 6                             8FA854.20.odt


the co-ordinate bench of this Court that the village Satona is adjoining the

village of Mapegaon and, consequently, the rate, i.e., Rs. 4426/- per R,

was fixed. Thus, I find that there is no reason to take a different view

from the view taken by the coordinate bench in First Appeal No.

2259/2021. It further cannot be ignored that Section 4 notification in the

present First Appeal, as well as in First Appeal No. 2259/2021, was

issued in the year 2002. Therefore, the escalation was also appropriately

considered. Thus, I conclude that the claimant would be entitled to the

rate of Rs. 4426/- per R for the Jirayat land.


13.         This takes me to the next contention of Mr. Arora, that the

testimony of an expert witness should not be taken into consideration as

it is .


The law in this regard is crystal clear.The relevant judgments are The

Special Land Acquisition Officer and another v. Sidappa Omanna

Tumari and Others, reported in 1995 Supp (2) SCC 168, and State of

Himachal Pradesh Versus Jai Lal and Others, reported in (1999) 7

SCC 280. The gist of the aforesaid judgments is that an expert is not a

witness to the facts, his evidence is like an opinion, the opinion is not

binding on the Court, and the Court has to examine and assist the opinion

independently. An expert who submits his report to the Court for
                                 7                                8FA854.20.odt


consideration must place before the Court the entire material on which he

arrives at the opinion given to the Court. It is the duty of the Court to

assist the opinion in the light of the material relied upon by the valuer.


14.         Learned counsel Mr Arora, also relied upon the judgment of

the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chandrashekhar and Others

Versus Addl. Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in AIR 2009

SC 3012     and contended that the Court's previous decision would not be

binding but would only guide in deciding the controversy.


15.          The gist of this judgment is that the requirement is that, the

judgment which is relied upon by the claimant, must be proved by the

person relying upon it by adducing evidence aliunde, and that, due regard

be given to all attendant facts and circumstances, so that it could furnish

the basis for determining the market value of the acquired land.


16.         In the aforesaid background, the testimony of the agriculture

expert whom the claimant examined is required to be taken into

consideration. P.W. 2 – the expert was examined below exhibit 26, who

had filed his evidence on an affidavit dated 27.09.2016. P.W. 2 by name

Dr    Kamalnayan     Uttamchand      Sanghavi,    had    stated   about      his

qualifications, including a PhD. His experience includes 34 years as a
                                8                             8FA854.20.odt


Professor at Mahatma Phule Agriculture University, Rahuri, 2 years as a

Principal, and years as a valuer. He stated that he had received several

awards, published several books, and written various articles. He stated

that he had visited the claimant's acquired land and inspected the

agricultural field. Thereafter, by scriptural methods and based on his

experience, he had given the valuation report.


17.         He also deposed that while deciding the valuation of the

trees, the sale-purchase transactions of the Agricultural Produce Market

Committee for the years 2002 and 2003 were taken into consideration.

He also produced record Exhibit 30, which shows his PhD papers, and

Exhibit 31, which shows his Master of Science degree in Agriculture.

Exhibit 37 was a chart of fruit rates provided by the Agricultural Produce

Market Committee, Jalgaon. The valuation of the trees was mentioned in

Exh. 33, which gives the general condition of the trees, height, stem

girth, spread, present age, future age, annual fruit production per tree,

average in kilograms, and wholesale market rates in Rs. / Kg. This

witness was then cross-examined by the acquiring body, during which he

admitted that the government did not appoint him as an expert valuer. He

also admitted that the rates at the different Agricultural Produce Market

Committees are different. Other suggestions given to him were denied.
                                 9                              8FA854.20.odt


18.         In cross-examination at the behest of original respondent no.

3, he stated that 14 years ago, he inspected the agricultural field and the

claimant had called him telephonically, so also he had seen the 7/12

extract of the year 2002. He stated that the trees he saw in the agricultural

field were mentioned in the 7/12 extract. He stated that in his report, he

did not mention the receipts showing the sale and purchase of the fruits

and numbers. He admitted that Jalna has a big market and his report is

based on the Jalna Agricultural Market Committee’s report. The other

suggestions given were denied. Thus, it can be seen that this man has

more than 34 years of experience; on the date of deposition, he was 75

years old, had written various books, had visited the acquired land, and,

using a scriptural method, had valued the property.


19.          As far as corroboration is concerned, Indrajit Wagh, the

claimant, was examined by the claimant based on evidence on an

affidavit dated 05.07.2016. In his deposition, he has provided a chart

showing the types of trees, numbers, ages, and annual income. His

testimony is very specific. The cross-examination of this witness shows

that, except for giving the suggestions, nothing fruitful is brought on

record. Moreover, Exhibit 23, which is a 7/12 extract, also shows the

cropping pattern. The holistic reading of the testimony of P.W. 1 and
                                 10                              8FA854.20.odt


P.W. 2 would clearly reveal that there is nothing to disbelieve the version

advanced by the claimant.


20.          Thus, it can be said that the evidence of the expert was rightly

taken into consideration by the reference Court. In that view of the matter

and since the evidence on record was rightly appreciated by the reference

Court, so also because the part of the issue was decided by virtue of the

judgment dated 14.11.2025, in First Appeal No. 2259/2021, I pass the

following order :

                                  ORDER

      i.     First Appeal No. 854/2020, preferred by the acquiring body,

      stands dismissed.


      ii.    First Appeal No. 1559/2023 is partly allowed.


      iii.   The claimant shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of

      Rs. 4,426/- per R for dry land; consequently, compensation is

      enhanced to Rs. 2,213/- per R for Potkharab land, Rs. 6,639/- per

      R for semi-irrigated land, and Rs. 8,825/- per R for irrigated land.


      iv.    The modified award shall be drawn accordingly.


      v.     The claimant shall pay the deficit Court fees.
                                11                               8FA854.20.odt


      vi.    The claimant will not be entitled to the interest on the

      delayed payment.


      vii.   The claimant will be entitled to the withdrawal of the amount

      along with interest.


      viii. Pending Civil Application also stands disposed of.




                                              ( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. )



SPC