Bombay High Court

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IRRIGATION PROJECT DIVISION JALNA THR G.M.I.D.C., AURANGABADversusDEVKARN LAKSHMAN PADOL AND ORS

Disposal: PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED

Holding

The enhanced compensation, being within four times the Special Land Acquisition Officer’s award and in conformity with the 2016 Government Resolution and its corrigendum, is upheld, and interest is to be calculated according to the State of Maharashtra v. Kailas Shiva Rangari ratio.

Summary

The Executive Engineer appealed against the compensation awarded to Devkarn Lakshman Padol and others in a land acquisition matter. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had fixed Rs 1,00,790, but the Reference Court enhanced it to Rs 3,26,613, which the respondent argued is within the four‑times ceiling prescribed by the Government Resolution of 03‑11‑2016 and its 23‑02‑2017 corrigendum. The appellant contended that the enhancement and the interest awarded were excessive and raised several grounds of appeal. The Court examined the Government policy, found the Reference Court’s award reasonable and not excessive, and held that the enhancement complied with the statutory ceiling. It also directed that interest be calculated in accordance with the Full Bench decision in State of Maharashtra v. Kailas Shiva Rangari. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed and disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the compensation enhancement granted by the Reference Court is within the limits prescribed by the 2016 Government Resolution and its 2017 corrigendum.
Whether the interest payable to the claimants should be calculated as per the ratio laid down in State of Maharashtra v. Kailas Shiva Rangari.
Whether the other grounds of appeal raised by the appellant merit interference.

Subjects

compensation enhancement
land acquisition
government resolution
interest calculation
appeal
Maharashtra

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:38208



                                                   1
                                                                   941-fa-2210-2019

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                     FIRST APPEAL NO. 2210 OF 2019

                      The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Project Division Jalna Thr
                                        G.M.I.D.C., Aurangabad
                                                VERSUS
                                   Devkarn Lakshman Padol And Ors
                                                    ...
                     Ms. Vaishali S. Swami h/f Mr. M. C. Swami, Advocate for
                     Appellant
                     Mr. B. V. Virdhe, AGP for Respondent-State
                     Mr. R. J. Nirmal, Advocate for Respondent no.1/a to 1/d
                                                   …..
                                          CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                           DATED : 21ST AUGUST, 2026

                     P.C. :-

                     .         Learned Advocate Mr. R. J. Nirmal for respondent

                     nos.1a to 1d submits that the enhancement of compensation is

                     governed by the Government Resolution dated 03.11.2016

                     and the corrigendum dated 23.02.2017. Referring to page

                     nos.9 and 34 of the appeal compilation, he submits that the

                     total amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer

                     is Rs.1,00,790/- whereas the enhancement granted by the

                     Reference Court is Rs.3,26,613/-. He submits that the

                     enhancement is evidently within four times the amount

                     awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and
                                 2
                                                 941-fa-2210-2019

therefore, the First Appeal be disposed of in view of the

Government policy. He submits that insofar as the interest

part is concerned, there can be no dispute that the ratio laid

down by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of

State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari , reported in

2016 (4) ALL MR 513 is binding on the parties.

2.    Learned Advocate for the appellant has no reason to

discard this factual position.

3.    Besides this, I have also considered the other grounds of

appeal as are raised by the appellant. I find that the findings

recorded by the Reference Court as regards to the objections

are reasonable and do not suffer from any gross illegality for

setting aside the impugned judgment and award. The

legislation in question is beneficial in nature and the rights of

the claimants must not be defeated on technical or hyper-

technical grounds.

4.    As observed above, the appeal is already covered by the

Government Resolution and the corrigendum. In view of the

said policy, the other grounds raised by the appellant in the

appeal do not warrant interference of this Court. The

compensation granted under all headings by the Reference
                               3
                                                941-fa-2210-2019

Court cannot be said to be excessive and inordinate so as to

warrant interference. Hence, on the other grounds also, I do

not find that the appellant could sustain any objection in this

appeal. Accordingly, First Appeal is partly allowed and

disposed of.

5.      Registry to calculate the interest payable to the

claimants in view of the law laid down in the judgment of

Kailas Shiva Rangari supra.



                                   ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )

Rushikesh/2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…