Bombay High Court

RAGHUNATH BALAJI DEVKATE L.RS. CHANDRABHAGA RAGHUNATH DEVKATE AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ORS

Disposal: PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED

Holding

The appeals are partly allowed, modifying the compensation to Rs 60,000 per acre and granting statutory benefits and interest as per the earlier decision.

Summary

The appellants‑claimants challenged the awards dated 18‑04‑2008 and 21‑04‑2008 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kandhar in four land‑acquisition references concerning dry lands acquired for the Upper Manar Project. They argued that the controversy was identical to that decided in First Appeal No. 276 of 2013, a position conceded by the State and the acquiring body. The Court held that, given the identical issues, the earlier judgment must govern and therefore modified the awards, fixing compensation at Rs 60,000 per acre, granting all statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and interest under Sections 28 and 34 as per the Full Bench decision in State of Maharashtra v. Kailas Shiva Rangari. The remainder of the original awards was left unchanged. The appeals were partly allowed and the modified awards were to be drawn accordingly.

Issues considered

Whether the present appeals are barred by issue estoppel/res judicata due to the earlier decision in First Appeal No. 276 of 2013.
What is the appropriate compensation rate for the acquired dry lands.
Whether the appellants‑claimants are entitled to statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Whether interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act is payable.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 28, 34

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation
statutory benefits
res judicata
interest
Upper Manar Project

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:40628
924-FA-1253-2015.odt
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
924 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1253 OF 2015
Baburao Tukaram Shendge And Another
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1776 OF 2015
Madhav Limbaji Hake (Died)
Through L.Rs. Vimalbai Madhav Hake And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2350 OF 2013
Laxman Ramu Yeme (Died)
Through L.Rs. Haribai Laxman Yeme And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO.2351 OF 2013
Raghunath S/o. Balaji Devkate (Died)
Through L.Rs. Chandrabhaga W/o. Raghunath Devkate And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
……
Mr. G.K. Sontakke, Advocate for Appellants-Claimants in all FAs
Mr. A.D. Wange, AGP for Respondents No.1 and 2 in all FAs
Mr. S.W. Munde, Advocate for Respondent No.3-Acquiring Body in FA/1776/2015
……

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 29 AUGUST, 2026
PER COURT :

1. First Appeal Nos. 2350 of 2013 and 2351 of 2013 are not on board.

Upon mentioning, the same are taken on board.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
924-FA-1253-2015.odt
2

3. The present appeals arise out of the Judgments and Awards dated

18.04.2008 and 21.04.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior

Division, Kandhar, in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 428 of 2003, 432 of

2003, 458 of 2003 and 457 of 2003.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants has tendered across the Bar a

copy of the judgment and order dated 13.08.2026 passed by this Court in

First Appeal No. 276 of 2013 and connected matters. He submits that the

lands of the appellants were acquired by different notifications from the

same village, i.e. Gaundgaon, for the same public purpose, namely, the

Upper Manar Project, as involved in the said appeals. It is, therefore,

contended that the controversy involved in the present appeals is squarely

covered by the order dated 13.08.2026 passed by this Court in First Appeal

No. 276 of 2013 and connected matters and, consequently, the present

appeals deserve to be disposed of in terms thereof. The learned A.G.P.

appearing for the respondent-State and learned counsel Mr. Munde,

appearing for the acquiring body in First Appeal No. 1776 of 2015, fairly

concede the aforesaid position.

5. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel

for the respective parties and in view of the admitted position that the

controversy involved in the present appeals is identical to the one decided

by this Court in First Appeal No. 276 of 2013 and connected matters by the

order dated 13.08.2026, I see no reason to take a different view.
924-FA-1253-2015.odt
3

The present appeals, therefore, deserve to be disposed of in terms of the said

judgment and order. Hence, the following order:

ORDER

(i) The First Appeals are partly allowed.

(ii) The impugned Judgments and Awards dated 18.04.2008 and
21.04.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kandhar, in
Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 428 of 2003, 432 of 2003, 458 of 2003 and
457 of 2003 are modified to the extent that the appellants-claimants shall be
entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per Acre for their
acquired dry lands.

(iii) The appellants-claimants shall be entitled to all statutory benefits
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

(iv) The appellants-claimants shall be entitled to interest under Sections
28 and 34 of the Act, strictly in accordance with the Full Bench decision of
this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (3)
Mh.L.J. 457.

(v) Rest of the Judgments and Awards passed by the learned Reference
Court shall remain unaltered.

(vi) The modified awards be drawn accordingly.

(vii) The appellants-claimants shall pay the deficit Court fees, if any, on
the enhanced compensation.

(viii) Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
S P Rane

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…