Bombay High Court

RAKHAMAJI RAMRAO GAIKWADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED

Holding

The appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs 2,400 per R for dry land and interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, but not to statutory benefits or interest for the delayed period.

Summary

RakhamaJi Ramrao Gaikwad appealed against a 2002 award of compensation for land acquired for the Nimna Dudhna Project, seeking a higher rate. The High Court examined a prior judgment (First Appeal No.1192 of 2018) that fixed enhanced rates for dry, seasonally irrigated and perennially irrigated lands. Relying on that precedent, the Court held that the appellant's land, being dry, qualifies for Rs 2,400 per R. The Court also ordered interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, following the Full Bench decision in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari, but denied any statutory benefits or interest for the delayed period. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, the award modified, and the acquiring body directed to pay the enhanced amount within three months.

Issues considered

When the land acquired for a public project is dry, is the appellant entitled to the enhanced compensation rate of Rs 2,400 per R as fixed in earlier case law?
Is interest payable under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act to the appellant?
Are statutory benefits and interest for the period of delay payable to the appellant?

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act — s. 28, 34

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation enhancement
dry land
interest under Land Acquisition Act
statutory benefits
Nimna Dudhna Project

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:37918

(1) 911 FA 1870 OF 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

911 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1870 OF 2020

RAKHAMAJI RAMRAO GAIKWAD
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASTRA AND OTHERS
...
Mr. D. M. Kakade, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. K. B. Jadhavar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - State
Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, Advocate for Respondent No.3/Acquiring Body
…

CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
DATE : 19.08.2026

PER COURT :-

. At the instance of learned Advocates for respective parties, the
matter is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 31.12.2002,
passed by learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Jalna, in Land Acquisition
Reference No.91 of 2000, the appellant is before this court seeking
enhancement in the compensation.

3. Mr. D. M. Kakde, learned advocate for the appellant would submit
that the subject-matter land of the appellant was Dry land. He would submit
that this Court vide order dated 20.07.2026, partly allowed First Appeal
No.1192 of 2018 (Shivaji Ashroba Chavan Vs. State of Maharashtra and
others). He would submit that the rates determined for different category of
lands and enhancement by this court vide the said order dated 20.07.2026 are
perfectly applicable to the present case also. He would submit that the sale
instances which are relied upon by the appellant during the trial of the
(2) 911 FA 1870 OF 2020

reference are the same sale instances cited by the appellant in First Appeal
No.1192 of 2018.

4. With the able assistance of Mr. Kakde, learned advocate for the
appellant and Mr. Sonpawale learned advocate for the respondent – acquiring
body, I have gone through the text of the order dated 20.07.2026 (supra).
Paragraphs 4, 5 and the operative order of the said order reads thus:-
“4. There is no dispute that, the land of the Appellant was acquired for the
Nimna Dudhna Project. The orders in the said First Appeals go to show
that, the lands from different village i.e. Kedarwadi were acquired for the
same purpose i.e. Nimnda Dudhna Project. From the papers and the said
orders, it is clear that, the said villages i.e. Wanjola and Kedarwadi are
situated in Mantha Taluka District Jalna.This goes to show that, the lands
which were the subject matter of those Appeals and the land which is the
subject matter of the case at hand were acquired for the same purposes.
The observations of in the common judgment dated 22.08.2008 passed by
the learned District Judge-2, Jalna in a group of Land Reference
Applications, one of which was L.A.R. No. 183 of 2000 shows that, the
said References were for the compensation towards the lands which were
acquired for the same Nimna Dudhna Project and the finding recorded
therein was that, village Wanjola is adjacent to village Kedarwadi. It is
settled position in view of the aforesaid decision in Ali Mohammad Beigh
(supra) that, when cluster of villages are acquired for the same project,
the land owners whose lands are acquired are entitled for the same
monetary benefits. There is nothing to show that, there is any reason not
to grant same rate to the Appellant.

5. Perusal of the orders of this Court shows that, this Court enhanced the
rate for the dry land to Rs. 2400/- per R, for seasonally irrigated land Rs.
3600/- per R and for perennially irrigated land Rs. 4800/- per R.
Considering all the aspects of the matter and as stated above, the
Appellant is entitled for the same rate for his acquired land. However, the
Appellant shall not be entitled for the statutory benefits and interest for
the delayed period and the same shall be calculated from the date of final
award in view of the law laid down in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash
Shiva Rangari, 2016 (3) Mh.L.J.457. Hence, the following order:

ORDER

(1) The First Appeal is partly allowed.

(2) The Appellant/Claimant shall be entitled for the enhanced
compensation for his acquired lands as follows:

(i) For Dry land Rs.2,400/- per R

(ii) For Semi irrigated land Rs.3600/- per R.
(3) 911 FA 1870 OF 2020

(iii) for Perennially irrigated land Rs.4800/- per R.

(3) The Appellant shall be entitled to interest under Sections 28
and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act as per the Full Bench
Judgment in the case of Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra).

(4) The Appellant shall not be entitled for the interest and
statutory benefits for the delayed period.

(5) The Award of the Reference Court stands modified
accordingly.

(6) The Claimant shall deposit the deficit Court fees.

(7) Record and Proceedings be sent back to the learned Reference
Court.

(8) Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.”

5. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that the appellant has
already stated and maintains the word that the land of the appellant was dry
land and it shall fetch the enhancement at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per R, as is
granted by this court in the cited matter. He would further submit that the part
of interest would be governed by the law laid down by the full Bench of this
Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari, 2016 (3)
Mh.L.J.457.

6. Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, learned counsel for the respondent –
acquiring body, after cautiously going through the contents of the order would
submit that the appellant must not be held entitled for the interest and the
statutory benefit for the delayed period. Further, there is nothing on record to
point out as to why the subject-matter land and reference of the appellant
would be held different than the subject-matter property and reference made
by this Court in First Appeal No.1192 of 2018.

7. For the reasons recorded above, I find that the appellant shall be
entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.2,400/- per R considering the
quality of land i.e. dry land, as is held in the cited case. In view of this, I deem
(4) 911 FA 1870 OF 2020

it appropriate to allow this appeal partly in the following terms:-

ORDER

I. The First Appeal is partly allowed.

II. The Appellant/Claimant shall be entitled to enhanced
compensation at the rate of Rs.2,400/- per R for dry land.

III. The Appellant shall be entitled to interest under Sections
28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act as per the Full Bench
Judgment in the case of Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra).

IV. The Appellant shall not be entitled for the interest and
statutory benefits for the delayed period.

V. The Award of the Reference Court stands modified
accordingly.

VI. The Appellant shall deposit the deficit Court fees, if any.

VII. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the learned
Reference Court.

VIII. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

IX. The acquiring body shall deposit the enhanced amount
in this court within three months from today.

[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
PRW

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…