DNYANOBA MARUTI KAVHALE DIED THRO. L.RS. YAMUNABAI DNYANOBA KAVHALE AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:4403
                                                 (1)                         fa-212-2017.odt




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 212 OF 2017

                     DNYANOBA MARUTI KAVHALE DIED THRO. L.RS.
                    YAMUNABAI DNYANOBA KAVHALE AND ANOTHER
                                           VERSUS
                       THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                                               ...
               Mr. Deepak M. Kakade, Advocate for Appellants.
               Mr. V. M. Lomte, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
               Ms. Sunita D. Shelke, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
                                               …

                                               CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
                                               DATED : 23rd JANUARY, 2026.

               P.C.:-

               1.       The present Appeal takes exception to judgment and award

               dated 22.08.2008 passed by District Judge, Jalna in Land

               Acquisition Reference No.207/2000 and seeks enhancement of

               compensation granted under Land Acquisition Act.


               2.       The appellants were owners and possessions of land

               Survey/Gut No.80/2, 41/2A admeasuring 2H 54R situated at village

               Kedarwakdi, Taluka Mantha, District Jalna. The appellants’ land

               has been acquired for purpose of “Nimnna Dudhana Project, Selu”.

               On 31.03.1999, Special Land Acquisition Officer passed Award

               under      Section    11   of   Land    Acquisition     Act   and       granted

               compensation @ Rs.655/- per R for dry land and Rs.982.50/- per R

               to semi irrigated land.         The appellants made Land Acquisition

               Reference     under     Section    18   of   Land     Acquisition      Act      for
                               (2)                           fa-212-2017.odt



enhancement of compensation.          The Reference Court considered

entire land of appellants in category of dry land and granted

enhanced compensation @ Rs.1200/- per R. Hence, this Appeal for

enhancement of compensation.


3.     Mr. Kakade, learned Advocate appearing for appellants

would submit that as per Award Statement ‘E’, appellants’ land

from Survey No.41/2A has been categorized in two parts as

partially dry and partially seasonally irrigated. The land area 63R

is categorized as dry land and land area 90R is categorized as

seasonally irrigated.    He would further invite attention of this

Court to Schedule-16 i.e. joint measurement report, wherein it can

be seen that appellants’ land was irrigated by Well water.                     He

would,   therefore,     urge   that    Reference     Court       erroneously

categorized appellants’ entire acquired land Gut/Survey No.41/2A

as dry land.


4.     Mr. Kakade would further submit that in First Appeal

No.649/2013 (Dattatraya s/o Rambhau Late and Anr. Vs. The

State of Maharashtra and Others) alongwith companion matters

this   Court   passed    common       judgment     pertaining       to     same

acquisition, wherein dry lands are given compensation @ Rs.2400/-

per R, semi irrigated lands are given compensation @ Rs.3600/- per

R and fully irrigated lands are given compensation @ Rs.4800/- per

R. He would further rely upon order dated 05.01.2026 passed in
                               (3)                          fa-212-2017.odt



First Appeal No.1896/2021 pertaining to selfsame common

judgment, which is subject matter of this Appeal, wherein this

Court followed rate fixed in First Appeal No.649/2013 alongwith

companion matters. He would, therefore, urge that appellants be

granted compensation as per bifurcation of dry and semi irrigated

land depicted in Award Statement ‘E’.


5.    Ms.   Sunita   Shelke,         learned   Advocate   appearing           for

respondent no.3 do not dispute factual and legal aspects pressed

into service by appellants.


6.    Having    considered     submissions       advanced      by     learned

Advocates appearing for respective parties, it can be observed that

in light of rates fixed for lands acquired for “Nimnna Dudhana

Project, Selu” under common judgment passed by this Court in

First Appeal No.649/2013 alongwith companion matters and

subsequent judgment in First Appeal No.1896/2021, it is clear that

this Court has approved market rate of acquired land as Rs.2400/-

per R for dry land and Rs.3600/- per R for semi irrigated land.


7.    As rightly pointed out by Mr. Kakade, learned Advocate

appearing for appellants, Award Statement ‘E’ clearly depicts that

appellants’ land from Gut No.41/2A was acquired, which was

partially dry and partially seasonally irrigated.         The appellants

would be entitled for appropriate compensation at enhanced rate

for acquired land as per aforesaid classification. Similarly, interest
                               (4)                       fa-212-2017.odt



awarded by Reference Court needs to be corrected in accordance

with law laid down in case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash

Shiva Rangari1.


8.      In that view of matter, there is no difficulty in holding that

appellants are entitled for compensation @ Rs.2400 per R for dry

land and Rs.3600/- per R for semi irrigated land, as classified in

Award Statement ‘E’. Hence, following order is passed:

                                ORDER

a.      The First Appeal is partly allowed.


b.      The appellants shall be entitled fo compensation @ Rs.2400/-

per R for portion of dry land and Rs.3600/- per R for semi irrigated

portion of land as per Award Statement ‘E’.


c.      The appellants shall be entitled to interest under Sections 28

and 34 of Land Acquisition Act as per Full Bench judgment in case

of Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra).


d.      The appellants shall not be entitled for interest and statutory

benefit for delayed period.


e.      Save and except above, impugned judgment and award

passed by Reference Court shall stand unaltered.


f.      The appellants shall pay deficit Court fees, if any.


g.      The Record and Proceeding be sent back to Reference Court.
1    2016 AIR (Bom.) 141.
                             (5)               fa-212-2017.odt




h.      Award be drawn up accordingly.



                                    (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
                                             JUDGE
Devendra/January-2026