Bombay High Court

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE COLLECTOR JALNA AND ORSversusTOTARAM DAGADU GAWANDE DIED THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS PRABHAKAR GAWANDE AND ORS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: S G CHAPALGAONKAR

Holding

The court upheld the Reference Court’s compensation rate of Rs 14,688 per R for semi‑irrigated land and affirmed interest under Sections 28 and 34 from the date of the award.

Summary

The State of Maharashtra acquired agricultural land for a percolation tank and, after issuing a Section 4(1) notification in 2005, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs 665 per R in 2006. The respondents filed a reference under Section 18 seeking enhanced compensation; the Reference Court fixed Rs 14,688 per R for semi‑irrigated land and Rs 9,792 per R for dry land, with interest under Sections 28 and 34. The State appealed, contending that the Reference Court relied on an outdated 2000 sale exemplar, mis‑classified the land, and wrongly awarded interest from the date of possession contrary to the Full Bench decision in State of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 semi‑irrigated rate and that any interest correction should follow the Rangari precedent. The High Court held that despite the reliance on the old exemplar, the rate of Rs 14,688 per R for semi‑irrigated land was appropriate and that interest should be awarded from the date of the award as per the Rangari case, thereby maintaining the Reference Court’s award with modification, and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

The appropriateness of using a 2000 sale exemplar for compensation assessment of land acquired under a 2005 notification.
Whether the land should be classified as semi‑irrigated for compensation purposes.
Whether interest on compensation should be awarded from the date of possession or from the date of the award under Sections 28 and 34, in light of State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari.
Whether the enhanced compensation award should be modified or upheld.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act — s. 11, 18, 28, 34, 4(1)

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation
interest
semi‑irrigated land
Section 18 reference
Section 28 interest
Section 34 interest
Kailash Shiva Rangari precedent

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:33127
-1-
976-FA-1905-2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

FIRST APPEAL NO.1905 OF 2024

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE COLLECTOR JALNA
AND OTHERS
VERSUS
TOTARAM S/O DAGDU GAWANDE, DIED THROUGH L.R'S.
PRABHAKAR S/O TOTARAM GAWANDE AND OTHERS

......
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 11.05.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge,

Senior Division, Jalna / Reference Court in L.A.R. No. 220 of 2017.

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.
-2-
976-FA-1905-2024

3. The respondents made Reference under Section 18 of Land

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.
-3-
976-FA-1905-2024

6. Per contra, learned Advocate appearing for respondents/

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.
-4-
976-FA-1905-2024

Finally, this Court concluded that the rate of acquired land can be

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…