DATTU KISHANRAO JADHAVversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:16897


                                                       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