Bombay High Court
ANANDA MAHADU CHOUDHARYversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ORS
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The Court held that the compensation for the dry lands acquired for the Tapi Minor Irrigation Project must be fixed at Rs.1,80,000 per hectare, aligning with the earlier judgment and the principle of parity.
Summary
A group of sixteen first appeals arose from land acquisition proceedings for the Tapi Minor Irrigation Project in Dhule, where the appellants' dry lands were compulsorily acquired and compensated at Rs.1,20,000 per hectare (or Rs.1,10,000 for two cases). Dissatisfied with the compensation, the appellants invoked a prior order (First Appeal Nos. 426 and 427 of 2014) that reduced a deduction from 30% to 10% and increased the valuation to Rs.1,80,000 per hectare. The acquiring authority agreed to the enhancement. The Court examined the principle of parity with the earlier judgments and the Full Bench decision in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari. It partly allowed the appeals, fixing compensation at Rs.1,80,000 per hectare and directing modification of the award, while confirming the remaining award provisions.
Issues considered
- Whether the compensation for dry land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act should be enhanced to Rs.1,80,000 per hectare in line with earlier judgments.
- Whether the deduction percentage applied in the earlier award should be reduced from 30% to 10% for the appellants.
- Whether the Full Bench judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari governs the modification of the award.
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- dry land
- parity
- award modification
- irrigation project
- Maharashtra
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:40025
(1) 931-FA-3371-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
931 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3371 OF 2019
Dhruptabai Namdeo Mahar
VERSUS
The Special Land Acquisition Officer Dhule And Anr
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1938 OF 2020
Barku Mahipat Choudhary
VERSUS
The State Of Mah And Ors
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1939 OF 2020
Sadashiv Khushal Patil, Died Thr. L.rs. Kailas And Ors
VERSUS
The State Of Mah And Ors
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1940 OF 2020
Tukaram Chindha Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Mahrashtra And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1941 OF 2020
Narayan Sadashiv Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Mah And Ors
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2733 OF 2019
Kishor Chadanmal Singhavi
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
Kiran Kawre
(2) 931-FA-3371-2019
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3364 OF 2019
Gokul Chadanmal Singhavi
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3367 OF 2019
Khelmaraj Damodar Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4281 OF 2022
Narayan Mahdu Choudhary
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 969 OF 2020
Ghanshyam Sampat Patil (baviskar), Died L.rs. Jijabai And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Mahrashtra And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2723 OF 2019
Mohan Chandanmal Singhavi
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1942 OF 2020
Ananda Mahadu Choudhary
VERSUS
The State Of Mah And Ors
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1943 OF 2020
Pitambar Mahipat Choudhary
VERSUS
Kiran Kawre
(3) 931-FA-3371-2019
The State Of Mahrashtra And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1032 OF 2020
Ramdas Chindha Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Mahrashtra And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1033 OF 2020
Ramesh Chindha Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Mahrashtra And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1034 OF 2020
Mohan Mahadu Choudhary
VERSUS
The State Of Mah And Ors
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1035 OF 2020
Vikram Sadashiv Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Mah And Ors
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1036 OF 2020
Jijabai Ghanshyam Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Mahrashtra And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 963 OF 2020
Ashok Bhata Patil
VERSUS
The State Of Mah And Ors
…..
Mrs. Nima R Suryawanshi, Advocate for Appellant.
Kiran Kawre
(4) 931-FA-3371-2019
Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, AGP for Respondent – State.
Mr. Pawar Ajay D., Advocate for Respondent No.2.
…..
CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 1, 2026.
PC :-
1. Heard at the instance of the parties.
2. The first appeals are taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.
3. This is a group of 16 first appeals which arise out of different land
acquisition reference cases arising out of land acquisition proceedings
conducted for the Tapi Minor Irrigation Project, Fagane, District Dhule.
4. The respective lands of the appellants were acquired by the acquiring
body for the said project under compulsory acquisition. The lands were
classified as dry lands. After completion of the entire land acquisition process
under the Act, the award was declared. Being dissatisfied with the deficit
compensation, the appellants approached the reference Court with their
respective land acquisition reference cases. The details of each case are seen in
the tabular chart produced below :
Kiran Kawre
(5) 931-FA-3371-2019
Sr. First Appeal No/s. L.A.R. No/s. Party
No.
1 F. A. No.2723 of 2019 LAR No.226/2003 Mohan Singhvi Vs. State
2 F. A. No.2733 of 2019 LAR No.241/2003 Kishor Singhavi Vs. State
3 F. A. No.3364 of 2019 LAR No.242/2003 Gokul Singhvi Vs. State
4 F. A. No.3367 of 2019 LAR No.230/2003 Khemraj Patil Vs. State
5 F. A. No.963 of 2020 LAR No.225/2003 Ashok Patil Vs. State
6 F. A. No.1032 of 2020 LAR No.221/2003 Ramdas Patil Vs. State
7 F. A. No.1033 of 2020 LAR No.213/2003 Ramesh Patil Vs. State
8 F. A. No.1034 of 2020 LAR No.239/2003 Mohan Chaudhary Vs. State
9 F. A. No.1035 of 2020 LAR No.206/2003 Vikram Patil Vs. State
10 F. A. No.1938 of 2020 LAR No.223/2003 Barku Chaudhary Vs. State
11 F. A. No.1940 of 2020 LAR No.247/2003 Tukaram Patil Vs. State
12 F. A. No.1941 of 2020 LAR No.222/2003 Narayan Patil Vs. State
13 F. A. No.1942 of 2020 LAR No.245/2003 Ananda Chaudhary Vs. State
14 F. A. No.1943 of 2020 LAR No.227/2003 Pitambar Chaudhary Vs. State
15 F. A. No.1939 of 2020 LAR No.214/2003 Sadashiv Patil Thr. LRs. Vs.
State
16 F. A. No.4281 of 2022 LAR No.235/2003 Narayan Chaudhari Vs. State
5. After assessing the evidence, the reference Court had arrived at a
conclusion whereby the rate for dry land was fixed @Rs.1,20,000/- per
hectare. Insofar as the first appeals at Serial Nos.1 to 14 are concerned,
likewise, for the first appeals at Serial Nos.15 and 16, the rate was fixed
@Rs.1,10,000/- per hectare. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the
appellants/claimants are before this Court.
Kiran Kawre
(6) 931-FA-3371-2019
6. Mrs. Suryawanshi, learned advocate for the appellants, would place
reliance on an order dated 30 July 2026 passed by this Court in First Appeal
No.426 of 2014 and First Appeal No.427 of 2014. She would submit that the
said appeals arose out of land acquisition references resulting from the same
land acquisition proceedings which are the subject matter of the present
appeals. Mrs. Suryawanshi would submit that after hearing both sides, this
Court recorded its opinion that there was an exorbitant deduction which was
unwarrantedly ordered and hence, the deduction was reduced to 10% instead
of 30%.
7. With this, the first appeals came to be partly allowed, fixing the value of
dry lands acquired for the project @Rs. 1,80,000/- per hectare. Mrs.
Suryawanshi concludes her arguments with the submission that the lands of
all the appellants are dry lands and hence in view of the cited order, the
appellants also deserve the same relief on the principle of parity. The sum and
substance of the argument is that the compensation needs to be escalated by
holding the value of appellants’ land @Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare.
8. Mr. A. D. Pawar, learned advocate representing the acquiring body, has
taken instructions from his authorities. He submits that he has represented the
acquiring body in the cited matters. In all fairness, he wold submit that the
Kiran Kawre
(7) 931-FA-3371-2019
first appeals could be allowed by granting enhancement as is ordered in the
cited case. In other words, the acquiring body is agreeable if the appeals are
allowed by granting enhancement, holding the value of appellants’ acquired
lands @Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare.
9. In view of this, I have no hesitation to dispose of these first appeals
allowing partly as ordered below. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
(i) The First Appeals are partly allowed.
(ii) The appellants are entitled for compensation @Rs.1,80,000/- per hectare
for the dry lands.
(iii) The operative part of the impugned award be modified accordingly to
that extent. The part of interest shall be governed by the law laid down
by Full Bench judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash
Shiva Rangari1.
(iv) Rest of the impugned award stand confirmed.
(v) Modified awards be drawn up accordingly.
(vi) The appellants shall pay deficit Court fees within a period of one month
from today.
(vii) The acquiring boy shall deposit the modified award amount in the
Registry of this Court within a period of six months from today.
1 (2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457)
Kiran Kawre
(8) 931-FA-3371-2019
10. Needless to mention, the deposit shall exclude such amount as has
already been paid or deposited. On such deposit, the appellant shall be at
liberty to withdraw the same without filing any separate application.
11. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
Kiran Kawre
Checking your session…