Bombay High Court
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE COLLECTOR JALNA AND ORSversusKUNDLIK DASHRATH BARKALE AND ORS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- S G CHAPALGAONKAR
Holding
The compensation rate of Rs.14,688 per R for semi‑irrigated land is upheld, and interest must be awarded from the date of the award as mandated by the Full Bench decision in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra acquired agricultural land from the respondents to construct a percolation tank, issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act in 2005 and awarding compensation of Rs.665 per R under Section 11 in 2006. The respondents filed a reference under Section 18 seeking enhanced compensation, and the Reference Court fixed rates of Rs.14,688 per R for semi‑irrigated land and Rs.9,792 per R for dry land, including interest and statutory benefits. The State appealed, contending that the Reference Court relied on an outdated 2000 sale exemplar and mis‑classified the land, and that interest should not accrue from the date of possession contrary to the Full Bench decision in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari. The respondents argued that a prior appeal had already upheld the same rates and that only the interest component might need correction. The High Court held that, despite the reliance on the old exemplar, the rate of Rs.14,688 per R for semi‑irrigated land is appropriate, and affirmed that interest under Sections 28 and 34 must be awarded from the date of the award (20 May 2006) as per the Kailash Shiva Rangari precedent. Consequently, the award was maintained with the modification regarding interest, and the appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the Reference Court erred by using a sale exemplar dated before the acquisition notification to assess compensation.
- Whether the acquired land should be classified as semi‑irrigated for the purpose of compensation.
- From which date interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act should be payable – date of possession or date of award.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act — s. 11, 18, 28, 34, 4(1)
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation assessment
- interest under Sections 28 and 34
- semi‑irrigated land
- percolation tank
- reference court
- appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:33129
-1-
976-FA-1863-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.1863 OF 2024
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE COLLECTOR JALNA
AND OTHERS
VERSUS
KUNDLIK S/O DASHRATH BARKALE AND ANOTHER
......
AGP for Appellant : Mr. K. S. Hoke Patil
Advocate for Respondents : Mr. D. M. Pingale
...…
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED : 31st JULY, 2026
PER COURT :
1. The appellant-State Government takes exception to
judgment and award dated 10.05.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Jalna / Reference Court in L.A.R. No. 150 of 2018.
2. The appellants have acquired agricultural land of
respondents for the purpose of construction of percolation tank – 2 in File
No. JA.KRA-06/LAQ/GA/CR-36/2003. The notification under Section
4(1) of Land Acquisition Act was issued on 05.05.2005. The Land
Acquisition Officer passed an award dated 20.05.2006 under Section 11
of Land Acquisition Act and offered compensation for the acquired land
@ Rs.665/- per R.
3. The respondents made Reference under Section 18 of Land
-2-
976-FA-1863-2024
Acquisition Act seeking enhanced compensation. The Reference Court, on
evaluation of evidence, determined compensation @ Rs. 14,688/- per R
for semi-irrigated land and Rs. 9,792/- per R for dry land. Accordingly,
impugned award has been passed by Reference Court along with interest
and statutory benefits as per Land Acquisition Act.
4. Aggrieved by judgment and award passed by Reference
Court, State has filed present appeal.
5. Mr. Hoke Patil, learned AGP appearing for appellant - State
submits that Reference Court has relied upon sale exemplar dated
26.05.2000, which was for small piece of 10 R land. Secondly,
classification of acquired land as irrigated or semi-irrigated is not made
appropriate to evidence tendered into service on behalf of
respondents/original claimants. Mr. Hoke Patil would further submit that
Reference Court has granted enhanced compensation along with interest
from the date of possession under Section 28 of Land Acquisition Act,
which is contrary to law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in case of
State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari reported in 2016 (4) ALL
MR 513.
6. Per contra, learned Advocate appearing for respondents/
-3-
976-FA-1863-2024
claimants would submit that appellants had challenged award passed by
Reference Court in L.A.R. No. 149 of 2018 by filing First Appeal No.1844
of 2024. The said reference pertains to selfsame notification and award
which is subject matter in present appeal. This Court rejected contentions
of appellant while upholding rate of semi-irrigated land @ Rs. 14,688/-
per R. Therefore, the whole basis of challenge by appellants in present
appeal does not survive. He fairly conceded that interest awarded under
Sections 28 and 34 can be corrected in tune with law laid down by Full
Bench of this Court in case of Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra).
7. Having considered submissions advanced by learned
Advocates appearing for respective parties, this Court finds that
Reference Court relied upon sale exemplar of 10 R land while making
assessment of compensation for acquired land. However, the sale
exemplar was dated 26.05.2000, whereas notification under Section 4
was issued on 05.05.2005.
8. Looking to time gap, this Court while deciding First Appeal
No.1844 of 2024 considered escalation @ 10% per annum and deducted
10% amount having regard to proximity and potentiality of land. Further
deduction of 10% was considered on account of smallness of land.
Finally, this Court concluded that the rate of acquired land can be
-4-
976-FA-1863-2024
assessed @ Rs.14,688/- per R classifying same to be semi-irrigated land.
In light of view taken by this Court while deciding First Appeal No.1844
of 2024, submissions advanced on behalf of appellants do not survive.
9. Insofar as aspect of interest on compensation amount, the
law is settled by Full Bench of this Court in case of Kailash Shiva Rangari
(Supra). Therefore, claimants would be entitled for interest under
Sections 28 and 34 of Land Acquisition Act as granted by Reference Court
from the date of award i.e. 20.05.2006.
10. With aforesaid modification, award passed by Reference
Court deserves to be maintained.
11. First Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Tandale
Checking your session…