Bombay High Court
THAKUSING BANNUSING RAJPUTversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR, AURANGABAD
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SHAILESH P BRAHME
Holding
The Court upheld the earlier common judgment and dismissed the appellants' appeals, refusing any enhancement of compensation.
Summary
The appellants, a group of landowners, challenged a common judgment dated 27.01.2003 and a subsequent judgment dated 08.01.2018 that fixed compensation for their lands at Rs.700 per R, arguing that the rate was inadequate and that some of their lands, classified as dry, should be treated as irrigated with higher compensation. They sought a rate of Rs.2,500 per R with 10% annual escalation for fifteen months, and for certain lands, Rs.5,000 per R, citing evidence of water sources and crop patterns. The State, represented by the Assistant Government Pleader, contended that the earlier judgments were final, the appellants had suppressed material facts, and any enhancement would violate judicial discipline. The Court examined whether the appellants’ pending appeals had been disclosed to the coordinate bench and whether the earlier common judgment could be revisited. Finding that the appellants failed to disclose the pendency of their appeals and that the earlier judgment was properly upheld, the Court dismissed all the first appeals without altering the compensation rate.
Issues considered
- The adequacy of the compensation rate of Rs.700 per R awarded by the Reference Court.
- Whether lands classified as dry should be re‑classified as irrigated based on evidence of water sources and crop patterns.
- Whether the appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation and escalation for delay.
- The effect of the earlier common judgment dated 08.01.2018 on the present appeals.
- The procedural propriety of the appellants’ failure to disclose pending appeals to the coordinate bench.
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation rate
- dry land vs irrigated land
- enhancement of compensation
- condonation of delay
- common judgment
- cross‑objections
- judicial discipline
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:4520
905-FA.2122-24 & ors.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2122 OF 2024
DHANUSING HARISING RAJPUT DIED THR LRS RAGHUSING DHANUSING
RAJPUT AND ORS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR, AURANGABAD
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2123 OF 2024
SUBHASHSING SHAMSING THAKUR AND ORS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2124 OF 2024
KISANSING SANDUSING RAJPUT AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR, AURANGABAD
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2125 OF 2024
KASABAI SHIVRAM RAJPUT, L.RS. GANGARAM DIED THR LRS HARNABAI
G. RAJPUT AND ORS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR, AURANGABAD
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2126 OF 2024
BHAGUSING CHOTIRAMSING RAJPUT AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR, AURANGABAD
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2127 OF 2024
SHANKARSING CHHAGANSING, L.RS. KACHRABAI AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR, AURANGABAD
1/7
905-FA.2122-24 & ors.odt
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2128 OF 2024
GANGARAM GUNSING DIED THR LRS HARNABAI GANGARAM RAJPUT
AND ORS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR,
AURANGABAD
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2129 OF 2024
GIRDHARSING BAPUSING DIED THR LRS HIRASING GIRDHARSING
RAJPUT AND ORS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR,
AURANGABAD
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2130 OF 2024
THAKUSING BANNUSING RAJPUT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR, AURANGABAD
...
Advocate for Appellants : Mr. D. A. Bide h/f Mr. Sonawane Charudatta K. &
Mr. N. R. Thorat.
AGP for Respondent/s-State : Mr. N. D. Raje.
...
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
RESERVED ON : 23.01.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 02.02.2026
FINAL ORDER :-
1. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties.
2. Appellants are taking exception to common judgment and award
dated 27.01.2003 deciding in all thirty two references. Out of them nine
2/7
905-FA.2122-24 & ors.odt
claimants have preferred present appeals. Facts are identical. Therefore,
they are disposed of by common judgment.
3. It is relevant to notice that in First Appeal No. 2122 of 2024, First
Appeal No. 2129 of 2024, First Appeal No. 2123 of 2024 and First Appeal
No. 2127 of 2024, appellants are satisfied with classification of their lands as
dry lands. In rest of the appeals they are claiming that their lands should
have been treated to be irrigated instead of dry lands.
4. Learned counsel Mr. Bide has placed on record a chart, the sale
instances which were part of record of the Reference Court and common
judgment and order passed by the Coordinate Bench on 08.01.2018 in First
Appeal No.1233 of 2003. He would submit that rate awarded by the
Reference Court is extremely inadequate and against settled principles of
law. Appellants are entitled to receive rate of Rs.2,500/- per R. It is further
contended that appellants are entitled to have escalation for fifteen months
@ 10% per annum.
5. Besides above common submissions applicable to all appeals, it is
submitted that in First Appeal Nos.5 to 9, the acquired lands are wrongly
treated to be dry lands, when there is material on record to show source of
water and the crop pattern. The lands should have been treated as fully
irrigated lands and in those matters appellants are entitled to receive Rs.
5,000/- per R. It is submitted that even trees are also located in those lands,
albeit, their existence is doubted.
3/7
905-FA.2122-24 & ors.odt
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents
submits that all appeals are liable to be dismissed considering the conduct of
the appellants. It was not brought to the notice of High Court when first
appeals preferred by the State were decided by common judgment dated
08.01.2018 that claimants have also preferred separate appeals. It is further
submitted that in view of confirmation of the impugned judgment and order
by common judgment dated 08.01.2018, it is impermissible to grant any
enhancement. It is submitted that the evidence on record is not cogent
enough to treat the dry lands as irrigated lands.
7. I have considered rival submissions of the parties. I have gone
through common judgment and award which is under challenge as well as
common judgment dated 08.01.2018 passed by Co-ordinate Bench (M. S.
Sonak, J.). Respondent/State had filed near about 27 first appeals
challenging self-same common judgment which is under consideration in the
present appeals. Claimants had engaged lawyer to represent them in those
appeals. They were heard by the learned Judge. Those were dismissed
upholding rate of Rs.700/- per R. awarded by the Reference Court. Present
appeals are filed on 14.07.2013 with applications for condonation of delay.
When the Co-ordinate Bench decided the appeals present appeals were
pending for consideration of condonation of delay. The delay was condoned
in the present appeals on 17.01.2023.
8. Perusal of common judgment dated 08.01.2018 shows that it was
4/7
905-FA.2122-24 & ors.odt
represented that respondents therein could not prefer cross-objections as
they were unable to raise necessary court fees. The Government Resolution
dated 03.11.2016 and the corrigendum were pressed into service to disclose
that the enhancement by the Reference Court was within four times. The Co-
ordinate Bench dealt with the matter on merits. By speaking order the rate
of Rs.700/- per R. granted by the Reference Court was upheld.
9. Surprisingly, appellants and their counsel did not bring to the notice
of the Co-ordinate Bench having filed present first appeals which were
pending for condonation of delay. It was the duty of both the parties to
disclose filing of the present appeals and to take steps to club them along
with the appeals preferred by the respondent/State. Having suffered
common judgment rendered on 08.01.2018 in the group of appeals
preferred by the respondent state upholding rate of Rs.700/ per R., it is
impermissible for this Court to examine the matter on merits and to take any
different view. Any enhancement in the present appeals would be against
judicial concomitants and the discipline. Present appellants have suppressed
material facts. This Court has no alternative than to adopt the view taken by
the Co-ordinate Bench.
10. The learned counsel Mr. Bide would submit that inadvertently the
pendency of present appeals is not brought to the notice of Co-ordinate
Bench. He has advanced various submissions of the merits of the matters
and relied on judgments passed by Apex Court in the matter of Manohar Vs.
5/7
905-FA.2122-24 & ors.odt
State of Maharashtra, Chindha Fakira Patil through L.Rs. Vs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer and Mehrawal Khewaji Trust Vs. State of Punjab and
others. The highest sale instance at Exh.15 disclosing the rate of Rs.877/-
per R. should have been accepted. On merits, it is possible to hold that rate
of Rs.700/- per R. awarded is inadequate. The appellants are entitled to rate
of Rs.986/- per R. Even in the common judgment dated 08.01.2018 the Co-
ordinate Bench made certain observations in favour of the appellants.
However, I am not inclined to cause any interference in the impugned
judgment and award.
11. Learned counsel Mr. Bide has tried to persuade me by citing
judgment of Badru (Died) through L.Rs. Hari Ram and others Vs. NTPC Ltd.
and others [(2019) 20 Supreme Court Cases 652 to buttress that dismissal
of the appeals of the respondents would not foreclose the remedy of appeals
on merits. In that case, the acquiring body had preferred appeals before
High Court. The cross objections preferred by the land owners were clubbed
along with appeals. Those were disposed of by one line order without
assigning any reasons. In that context, the observations are recorded in
paragraph Nos.16 and 17 of that judgment holding that cross objections
should have been dealt on merits by assigning independent reasons. In such
a situation, case was remanded to High Court to consider the cross
objections on merits. In the cases at hand, appellants failed to bring it to the
notice of Co-ordinate Bench about pendency of the present appeals. The
facts are distinguishable. I am unable to conquer with the submissions of
6/7
905-FA.2122-24 & ors.odt
learned counsel for the appellants.
12. First appeals are dismissed.
(SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)
…
vmk/-
7/7
Checking your session…