Bombay High Court
RAMESH KESHAV BAVASKARversusTHE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, U.T.P.H.-2, JALGAON AND ANR
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The court held that despite the existence of a well, the land was to be classified as dry land and enhanced the compensation to Rs 2,00,000 per hectare.
Summary
The appellants challenged a 2010 award that valued their acquired land as dry land, seeking a higher compensation by arguing that the presence of a well made the land irrigated. The reference court had relied on a 1999 sale transaction of dry land from the same village and awarded Rs 1,95,000 per hectare for dry land, rejecting the irrigated claim. The State opposed any enhancement, contending the sale evidence showed dry land and that the appellants offered no proof of a water source. The High Court noted that while a well existed, the cultivators grew only dry‑crop varieties, and therefore the land should be treated as dry. Aligning with a prior first‑appeal decision in the same project, the Court partially allowed the appeal, raising the dry‑land compensation to Rs 2,00,000 per hectare and leaving the rest of the award unchanged.
Issues considered
- Whether the presence of a well makes the acquired land irrigated for the purpose of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.
- What is the appropriate market value compensation for the land – as dry land or irrigated land?
- Whether the sale instances presented by the claimants are admissible evidence to classify the land.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- irrigated land
- dry land
- valuation
- well
- precedent
- appeal
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:30550
16-FA-2307-2017.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
16 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2307 OF 2017
Ramesh Keshav Bavaskar
VERSUS
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, U.t.p.h.-2, Jalgaon And Anr
...
Mr. Ajeet Kale for the Appellant.
Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for State.
Mr. Vivek Tarde for Respondent No.2.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 10 JULY 2026
P. C.:
1. Admit.
2. As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1997, heard finally with
the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties.
3. The Appellants/original claimants are aggrieved by the judgment and
order dated 22nd January 2010, passed by the Jt. Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Jalgaon in LAR No.900 of 2005, whereby learned Reference Court
enhanced the compensation, but the present Appeal is filed seeking further
enhancement.
4. The land of the claimants was acquired for public purpose, the
notification under Section 4 was issued on 9 th March 2002 and award was
passed on 28th October 2002. The SLAO granted compensation
@Rs.62,500/- to Rs.93,500/- per hector. The claimants had claimed
Shubham Page 1 of 4
16-FA-2307-2017.doc
compensation @Rs.6,00,000/- per hector for irrigated land whereas the
Reference Court granted compensation @Rs.1,95,000/- per hector for dry
land and Rs.3,90,000/- per hector for irrigated land and Rs.97,500/- per
hector for Potkharab land.
5. Learned counsel for the Appellant-claimant submits that the claimants
had proved before the learned Reference Court that their land was irrigated
as it contained a well. The claimants relied upon sale instances dated 25 th
February 1999 and 22nd June 2000 wherein lands sold were dry lands from
the same village Chinchkhede (Bk.) but considering existence of well, the
claimants claimed that their land was irrigated land thereby claiming
compensation @Rs.6,00,000/- per hector for irrigated land. The learned
Reference Court relied upon sale instance dated 25 th February 1999 which
was closest to the date of publication of Section 4 notice in the village.
Despite existence of well, the learned Reference Court erroneously held that
the land of claimants was dry land. Relying upon Chimanlal Hargovinddas
vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona & Anr. (1988 AIR SC 1652) and
State of Maharashtra Vs. Baliram Girdhar Patil (2006 LSC 375 Bom.), he
prays to allow the present Appeal and enhance the compensation by holding
the acquired land as irrigated land.
6. Per contra, learned AGP for the State and learned counsel for the
acquiring body oppose the enhancement on the ground that the sale
instances relied upon by the claimants were of dry lands. Therefore, learned
Shubham Page 2 of 4
16-FA-2307-2017.doc
Reference Court by relying upon the same considered the acquired land as
dry land as the land in the sale instances and the acquired land were from
the same village. The learned Reference Court has recorded the finding that
the claimants have failed to produce any document evidencing that their
land had water source. The claimants have not even filed 7/12 extract to
show nature of land. Thus, the learned Reference Court has rightly held that
their land was dry land and thereby awarding compensation at the market
value of at par with the sale instance dated 25th February 1999 i.e.
Rs.1,95,000/- per hector for dry land. Thus he prays to dismiss the present
Appeal.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
record. There is no dispute with respect to the fact that the acquired land
contained a well. The learned Reference Court has recorded finding that the
claimants were cultivating crops such as cotton, Tur and hybrid Jowar which
are dry crops. The learned Reference Court relying upon sale instance from
the same village dated 25th February 1999 held the market value to be
Rs.1,95,000/- per hector for dry land which is appropriate. But this Court in
First Appeals arising out of same project has granted compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/- per hector for dry land and Rs.4,00,000/- per hector for
irrigated land. Adopting the same ruling in the present matter also, I am
inclined to enhance compensation @Rs.2,00,000/- per hector for dry land.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:-
Shubham Page 3 of 4
16-FA-2307-2017.doc
ORDER
i. The present Appeal is partly allowed.
ii. The Appellants-claimants are entitled to compensation
@Rs.2,00,000/- for dry land and to that extent clause (2) of the
operative order of the impugned award stands modified.
iii. Rest of the award passed by the learned Reference Court stands
confirmed.
iv. Modified award be drawn up accordingly.
8. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]
Shubham Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…