VITHAL LAXMAN KHAJE AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE COLLECTOR LATUR AND ANR

2026:BHC-AUG:5511




                                                 1                        21 & 22 fa 1199.25

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 21 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1199 OF 2025

                           Nur Sajan Shaikh and others              .. Appellants

                                Versus

                           The State of Maharashtra Through
                           The Collector, Latur and another         ..    Respondents

                    Shri Shrikant J. Sonkawade, Advocate for the Appellants.
                    Shri N. D. Raje, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1.
                    The Respondent No. 2 is served.

                                              AND
                                 22 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1605 OF 2025

                           Vitthal Laxman Khaje and others          .. Appellants

                                Versus

                           The State of Maharashtra Through
                           The Collector, Latur and another         ..    Respondents

                    Shri Shrikant J. Sonkawade, Advocate for the Appellants.
                    Shri S. V. Hange, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1.
                    The Respondent No. 2 is served.


                                      CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
                                       DATE : 06TH FEBRUARY, 2026.

                    FINAL ORDER :


                    .      Heard both sides finally with their consent.


                    2.     Appellants, who are original claimants, are challenging
                              2                   21 & 22 fa 1199.25

common judgment and award dated 17.10.2022 passed by the
Reference Court in L. A. R. No. 37 of 2004 and L. A. R. No. 38 of
2004. Their lands from village Anandwadi, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur
were acquired for construction of percolation tank. The Special
Land Acquisition Officer offered rate of Rs. 21,500/- per hectare.
By the impugned judgment Reference Court dismissed the
references and the rate is confirmed.


3.     Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in
similarly situated matters arising from village Shivni (Lakh), Tq.
Ausa, the Reference Court enhanced the rate from Rs. 35,000/-
per hectare to Rs. 2,426/- per R in L. A.R. No. 481 of 2011 in the
case   of   Balaji   Ramrao   Kshirsagar   and   other   connected
references. It has been acquiesced by the acquiring body. On the
ground of parity the self same rate is claimed by the appellants.
It is further submitted that the sale instance dated 05.11.1998 in
the present matter and in the case of Balaji Ramrao Khsirsagar
is common.     It is further submitted that the Reference Court
committed patent illegality in dismissing the references, which is
discriminatory also.


4.     Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the
respondents would vehemently oppose the ground of parity. It is
submitted that the appellants did not bring to the notice of the
Reference Court judgment dated 28.11.2016 passed in the matter
of Balaji Ramrao Kshirsagar. It is submitted that no material is
placed on record regarding similarity of the lands acquired in the
                             3                      21 & 22 fa 1199.25

present matter as well as in the matter of Balaji Kshirsagar from
village Shivani (Lakh). It is submitted that the Reference Court
is justified in rejecting the sale instances. It is further contended
that sale transactions were available from village Anandwadi,
which were not produced. The conduct of the appellants is stated
to be objectionable and no benefit can be given to them on the
ground of parity.


5.    I have considered rival submissions of the parties.        The
lands from village Anandwadi, Tq. Ausa are acquired vide
notification dated 07.04.1994 issued U/Sec. 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act (for the sake of brevity and convenience
hereinafter referred as to the “L. A. Act”). When the impugned
judgment was passed, judgment dated 28.11.2016 passed in L. A.
R. No. 481 of 2011, that of Balaji Ramrao Kshirsagar was quite
available and should have been placed on record. Appellants,
rather relied on the rate fixed by the Reference Court in L. A. R.
No. 189 of 2016 to the tune of Rs. 4,536/- per R. The Reference
Court elaborately discussed that how the sale instance dated
05.11.1998 is not comparable in discarding the same. Similarly
the rate fixed in L. A. R. No. 189 of 2016 has also been discarded.


6.    It transpires from record that the distance between
Anandwadi and Lamjana is about 10 to 15 K.M. The distance
between Anandwadi and Shivani (Lakh) is also around 10 to 15
K.M. Though the appellants should have brought evidence on
record regarding similarity of the lands from village Lamjana,
                             4                      21 & 22 fa 1199.25

Shivani (Lakh) and Anandwadi, solely on that ground the
references should not have been rejected.            It cannot be
overlooked that in L.A.R. No. 481 of 2011 enhancement is
granted by the Reference Court and the rate of Rs. 2,426/- per R
has been acquiesced, which is evident from letter dated
01.12.2023.


7.    In case of Balaji Khsirsagar in L. A. R. No. 481 of 2011, six
minus factors were considered by the Reference Court and
deduction to the tune of 62.5% was arrived at to work out the
rate to the extent of 2,426/- per R (Rs. 97,040/- per acre). The
land in that case was acquired from village Shivani (Lakh). The
common sale exemplar is from Lamjana. In the present matters
also, I am of the considered view that deduction to the extent of
62.5% are required to be made for arriving at a rate.


8.    I find substance in the submissions of the learned A. G. P.
that the judgment in the matter of Balaji Kshirsagar was decided
before more than four years. Appellants should have brought on
record the sale instance from self same village Anandwadi. The
conduct of the appellants is deprecated. But for that purpose it
would be too harsh to deprive them from any enhancement.
Equities can be balanced if further deduction of 12.5% are made
to the rate of Rs. 2,426/- per R, which works out to be Rs. 2,123/-.
Considering overall circumstances, I find that appellants shall be
entitled to receive rate of Rs. 2,100/- per R for their acquired
lands.
                            5                      21 & 22 fa 1199.25



9.   I, therefore, pass following order.


                           ORDER

A.   First appeals are allowed partly with proportionate costs.


B.   Appellants – claimants are entitled to receive rate of Rs.
     2,100/- per R for their acquired lands.


C.   Appellants shall also be entitled to get 30% solatium and
     12% increase on the amount of compensation from the date
     of village notification U/Sec. 4 of the L. A. Act i. e.
     07.04.1994 till the date of award i. e. 29.10.2001.


D.   Appellants – claimants are also entitled to get interest on
     enhanced amount of compensation @ 9% per annum for the
     first year i. e. 07.04.1994 to 06.04.1995 and if enhanced
     amount of compensation is not paid, then entitled to 15%
     per annum for the rest of the year till realization of the
     entire amount.


E.   The compensation of the acquired lands paid earlier by the
     S. L. A. O. under references shall be adjusted.


F.   The appellants shall be entitled to interest U/Sec. 28 and
     34 of the L. A. Act as per the law laid down by the Full
     Bench of this Court in the matter of the State of Maharashtra
                               6                        21 & 22 fa 1199.25

      Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari reported in [2016 AIR (Bom.)141]..


G.    The appellants shall not be entitled to interest and
      statutory benefit for the period from 22.10.2007 to
      11.02.2021 as per the order dated 25th November, 2021
      passed in First Appeal No. 554 of 2021 and First Appeal
      No. 549 of 2021.


H.    The appellants shall not be entitled to receive interest and
      statutory benefits i. e. from the date of filing 07.02.2023 till
      restoration on 06.06.2025.


I.    The appellants shall pay deficit court fees.


J.    Award be drawn up accordingly.


K.    Record and proceedings shall be sent back to the Reference
      Court.

                                   [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]
bsb/Feb. 26