Bombay High Court
MANISHA NITIN KABRAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The land is deemed irrigated, no compensation is payable for fruit‑bearing trees, and enhanced compensation rates are awarded as per the earlier judgment.
Summary
The appeal concerned land acquired in 2006 from a village for a public purpose, the same acquisition as in a prior case decided by this Court. The appellant claimed the land was dry and sought compensation for fruit‑bearing trees, while the State argued it was irrigated. Relying on the earlier judgment in FA No. 3416/2016, the Court held that the presence of a well makes the land irrigated and therefore the appellant is not entitled to compensation for fruit‑bearing trees. Consequently, the Court partially allowed the appeal, granting enhanced compensation at Rs 12,97,400 per hectare for Bagayat land and Rs 3,24,350 per hectare for Pot Kharab land, along with all statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The earlier award was modified to the extent of these changes, the remainder of the award was upheld, and the appellant was directed to pay any deficit court fees.
Issues considered
- Whether the acquired land should be classified as dry or irrigated for compensation purposes
- Whether compensation is payable for fruit‑bearing trees on the acquired land
- Whether the enhanced compensation rates awarded in the earlier case apply to the present appeal
- Whether the earlier judgment in FA No. 3416/2016 is binding on the present matter
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- irrigated land
- dry land
- fruit bearing trees
- enhanced compensation
- statutory benefits
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:31924
FA 1561/17
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
36 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1561 OF 2017
MANISHA NITIN KABRA
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A.B. Kale
AGP for Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde
Advocate for Respondent 4 : Mr. S.S. Chillarge
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
Dated : July 27, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. Admit.
2. As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 2006, heard finally with
the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties.
3. The present appeal arises out of the Judgment and Award dated
17.01.2017 passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon,
in LAR No. 3/2010.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant/original claimant has
tendered across the Bar a copy of the judgment and order dated
14.7.2026 passed by this Court in FA No. 3416/2016 (Manoj Govinda Patil
Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.) and other connected matters. He
submits that the land of the present appellant was acquired from the same
village, for the same public purpose, and under the very same notification
as involved in the above appeals. It is, therefore, contended that the
controversy involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the
judgment and order dated 14.7.2026 passed in First Appeal No.3416/2016
(supra), and consequently, the present appeal deserves to be disposed of
FA 1561/17
2
in terms thereof. The learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2
and Mr. S.S. Chillarge, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4
fairly concedes the aforesaid position.
5. 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. 3416/2016 (supra), I see no reason to take
a different view. It needs to be mentioned here that the reference court
has held the land of the appellant as dry land and has also granted
compensation for fruit bearing trees. However, considering the above
judgment and order passed in FA No. 3416/2016 (supra) I hold that the
land of the appellant is irrigated land as there is existence of well in
acquired land and appellant is not entitled to receive compensation for fruit
bearing trees. The present appeal, therefore, deserves to be disposed of in
terms of the said judgment and order. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
(I) The appeal is partly allowed.
(II) The claimant is entitled to receive enhanced compensation at the
rate of Rs.12,97,400/- per H. for Bagayat land and Rs. 3,24,350/- per H.
for Pot Kharab land.
(III) The claimant shall be entitled to all consequential statutory benefits
under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the enhanced
compensation.
(IV) The claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount, if any, deposited
by the acquiring body along with accrued interest thereon.
FA 1561/17
3
(V) The impugned judgment and order of the reference court is modified
to that extent.
(VI) Rest of the award is maintained.
(VII) Claimants to pay deficit court fees, if any, on enhanced amount.
(VIII) Pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of.
( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )
ssc/
Checking your session…