Bombay High Court
RUKHMABAI UTTAM MALIversusDISTRICT COLLECTOR, JALGAON AND ORS
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The Court modified the compensation to Rs 8 lakh per hectare for dry land, Rs 16 lakh per hectare for bagayat/irrigated land and 80 % of the tree valuation, in conformity with the earlier judgment.
Summary
The appellants Rukhmabai Uttam Mali and Prashant Yadav Ahire challenged the compensation awarded for their lands acquired for the Minor Irrigation Tank project in Jalgaon. The Reference Court had increased compensation to Rs 16 lakh per hectare for bagayat land and Rs 8 lakh per hectare for jirayat (dry) land, but the appellants sought further enhancement. The High Court noted that an earlier judgment in First Appeal No. 2211/2014 (dated 12 Oct 2015) had already fixed the same rates and that the present matters were identical to those decided in First Appeal No. 1705/2017. Aligning with those precedents, the Court modified the compensation to Rs 8 lakh per hectare for dry land, Rs 16 lakh per hectare for bagayat/irrigated land and ordered payment of 80 % of the tree valuation, also confirming entitlement to interest. The appeals were therefore partly allowed and disposed.
Issues considered
- The appropriate rate of compensation for different categories of acquired land (dry vs. bagayat/irrigated).
- Whether the tree compensation should be limited to 80 % of the valuation report.
- Whether the earlier judgment in First Appeal No. 2211/2014 governs the present appeals.
- Entitlement to interest on the awarded compensation.
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- valuation
- trees
- interest
- minor irrigation project
- appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:41876
10-FA-1702-2017.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
10 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1702 OF 2017
Rukhmabai Uttam Mali
VERSUS
District Collector, Jalgaon And Others
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1701 OF 2017
Prashant Yadav Ahire
VERSUS
District Collector, Jalgaon And Others
…...
Mr. B.K. Pawar, Advocate h/f Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. A.M. Phule, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2
Mr. V.V. Tarde, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 and 4
…...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 04 SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
01. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants tenders across the
Bar a copy of the order dated 15.07.2026 passed by the Coordinate Bench of
this Court in First Appeal No.1705 of 2017 and connected matters. He
submits that the controversy involved in the present appeals is squarely
covered by the said order, as the lands were acquired for the same project
i.e. Minor Irrigation Tank, Mundkheda, Taluka Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon
and the issues arising in these appeals are identical. He, therefore, prays that
the present appeals be disposed of in terms of the said order. The learned
counsel appearing for respondents No.3 and 4-acquiring body as well as the
10-FA-1702-2017.odt
2
learned AGP appearing for the State fairly concede the said position.
02. These appeals are arising out of common impugned judgment and
award dated 20.01.2017 passed by the learned 2 nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Jalgaon in the respective land acquisition references filed by the
appellants herein. The learned Reference Court by way of award has
enhanced the compensation for the lands acquired by the respondents. He
urged to allow these appeals. The award and the notification are the same.
The lands are acquired for the same project and therefore, the matters are
taken up together for final disposal.
03. By way of the award the same rate was awarded. The appellants had
filed the references claiming enhancement of compensation for their
acquired land. The learned Reference Court, however, awarded the amount
@ Rs.16,00,000/- per hectare for Bagayat land and Rs.8,00,000/- per
hectare for Jirayat land. This Court in First Appeal No. 2211/2014 awarded
Rs. 8,00,000/- per hectare for dry land and Rs. 16,00,000/- per hectare for
Bagayat land vide its judgment and order dated 12.10.2015.
04. The order of the Reference Court is only by increasing the amount of
compensation and rest of the award was maintained as it is. The learned
Advocates for the respondents do not dispute this position. It is also
accepted that in view of this judgment some of the matters from the same
award were even settled in Lok Adalat in District Court where the references
were pending and such references were disposed off in view of the judgment
10-FA-1702-2017.odt
3
dated 12.10.2015. It is informed that present matters were only left out
from the group for some technical reasons. This Court by judgment and
order dated 12.10.2015 has already considered the claims of the parties, the
evidence led before the learned Reference Court and has modified award as
stated therein. This Court finds that there is no reason to take a different
view when the parties accept that the said judgment and order was in
respect of the same village and in respect of the same project and the
position of land is also similar.
05. This Court, therefore, finds that as regards the trees are concerned, it
was decided that the claimants would be entitled to receive 80% amount of
the valuation, as submitted before the Reference Court and on the basis of
the evidence of valuer. This Court finds that there is no propriety in taking
any different view. In view of this, these appeals are allowed by only
modifying the amount of compensation as Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight
Lakhs Only) per hectare for dry land and Rs. 16,00,000/- (Rupees Sixteen
Lakhs Only) per hectare for Bagayat/Irrigated land and 80% of the amount
of valuation for the trees. The modified amounts of compensation in the
First Appeals shall be as per the chart given below:-
Sr. FA No. Name of Party Gat No. LAR No. Lad
No. Admeasuring
1. 1702 of 2017 Rukhmabai Uttam Mali 178/2 484 of 2010 0 H 50 R
175/2 1 H.25 R
0.08 P.K.
2. 1701 of 2017 Prashant Yadam Ahire 135 481 of 2010 1 H 83 R
10-FA-1702-2017.odt
4
06. The appellants-claimants shall be entitled for the compensation for
the trees @ 80% of the amount in the valuation report.
07. In view of the above, the appeals stand partly allowed and are
accordingly disposed of.
08. Needless to say that the other statutory benefits as granted by the
Reference Court are upheld and maintained.
09. It is further clarified that the claimants will be entitled to receive the
interest as per Law.
10. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
S P Rane
Checking your session…