Bombay High Court
RAM HANMANTA MORE L.RS. SHIVAJI RAM MOREversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ORS
- Disposal
- Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
- Bench
- SANJAY A DESHMUKH
Holding
The Court held that the principle of parity applies, granting compensation at Rs.3,212 per R, but declined to enhance mango tree compensation and denied interest for delay.
Summary
The claimants appealed for enhancement of compensation awarded for lands acquired for the Kolsur Medium Project under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. They argued that, since their lands were acquired for the same purpose, under the same notification and by the same reference court as in First Appeal No.1392 of 2010, the principle of parity should apply and the compensation rate should be raised to Rs.3,212 per R. The respondents contended that parity was inapplicable and opposed any increase. The Court held that the lands were indeed acquired for the same purpose and therefore parity applied, granting the enhanced compensation, while rejecting the claim for increased compensation for mango trees and for interest on delayed payment. The appeals were allowed, the judgment and award were partly set aside, and the claimants were ordered to receive the enhanced amount with statutory benefits, but no interest for the delay.
Issues considered
- The applicability of the principle of parity to increase compensation for lands acquired under the same notification and purpose.
- Whether compensation for mango trees can be enhanced beyond the reference court's award.
- Whether claimants are entitled to interest for delayed payment of compensation.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- principle of parity
- statutory benefits
- interest
- solatium
- mango trees
- Section 4
- Land Acquisition Act
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:16899
1 907 FA.1600.2015 ORS.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
907 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1600 OF 2015
DATTU KISHANRAO JADHAV (DIED) THROUGH LRS
SHANTABAI DATTU JADHAV AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1598 OF 2015
SHIVAJI RAM MORE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1599 OF 2015
RAM HANMANTA MORE (DIED) THROUGH LRS
SHIVAJI RAM MORE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
…
Mr. Vivekanand V. Ingale, Advocate for Appellants / Claimants.
Ms. Anuradha S. Mantri, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
Mrs. Sunita D. Shelke, Advocate for Respondent No.3 / acquiring body.
…
CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 18th April, 2026.
Per Court:
1 These appeals have been preferred by the claimants for
enhancement of amount of compensation against the judgment and
award dated 18th November, 2009, passed by the learned Land
2 907 FA.1600.2015 ORS.odt
Reference Court, Taluka Omerga, District Osmanabad, in LAR
Nos.108, 83 and 88 of 2005.
2 The learned Advocate for the claimants pointed out the
judgment dated 27th March, 2026, passed by this Court in First Appeal
No.1392 of 2010 and other connected matters, by which this Court
determined the compensation @ Rs.3,212/- per R. He submitted that
the claimants’ lands are acquired for one and the same purpose i.e.
submergence of Kolsur Medium Project and the notification issued and
published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,
“said Act”) is also same. He, therefore, prayed to allow the appeals on
the principle of parity.
3 The learned AGP and the learned Advocate for the
acquiring body strongly opposed the appeals and submitted that the
principle of parity is not applicable to the present appeals. It is lastly
prayed to dismiss the appeals.
4 On perusal of the impugned judgment and award and the
judgment of this Court in First Appeal No.1392 of 2010 (supra), this
Court found that the appellants’ lands and the land in First Appeal
No.1392 of 2010 are acquired for one and the same purpose, from one
and same village, by one and same notification issued and published
under Section 4 of the said Act and even the land references were
3 907 FA.1600.2015 ORS.odt
decided by one and same Reference Court. The claimants are
therefore, entitled to the enhanced rate of compensation, on the
principle of parity, as per the judgment of this Court in First Appeal
No.1392 of 2010 (supra). On the basis of 7/12 extract and the recitals
in the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, it is established that the
claimants’ lands are irrigated. Therefore, the appellants’ / claimants’
are entitled to the compensation @ Rs.3212/- per R.
5 As far as the compensation for mango trees is concerned,
the reasons and findings of the learned Reference Court are legal and
correct. The learned Reference has rightly disbelieved the evidence of
the valuer. Therefore, the compensation for the mango trees cannot
be enhanced.
6 In view of the above, the appeals deserve to be allowed.
The impugned judgment and award deserves to be partly set aside.
Hence, the following order:-
ORDER
I. The first appeals are allowed.
II. The impugned judgment and award is partly set
aside and modified as under:-
4 907 FA.1600.2015 ORS.odt
a) The claimants are entitled to the
compensation @ Rs.3,212/- per R, which
includes earlier amount paid to the claimants
along with accrued interest and costs etc.
b) The claimants are also entitled for statutory
benefits like additional components, interest
and solatium as per the provisions of Land
Acquisition Act.
c) Rest of the judgment and award is
confirmed.
III. The claimants are not entitled to interest for the
delayed period, which was condoned by this Court,
if any.
IV. The enhanced amount of compensation with
statutory interest etc. shall be deposited in this court
within a period of six months from today and on
payment of deficit Court fee, if any, it be paid to the
appellants.
V. Award be drawn up accordingly.
VI. Pending civil applications, if any, is disposed of.
VII. Record and proceedings be sent back.
[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]
nga
Checking your session…