Bombay High Court
RAMANUJDAS BADRINARAYAN DAGAversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ORS
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The appeal is partly allowed and the appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs 1,20,000 per acre with statutory benefits and interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in accordance with the earlier coordinate bench decision.
Summary
The appellant, Ramanujdas Badrinarayan Daga, challenged a 2008 award of compensation for land acquired by the State of Maharashtra, claiming the same land and public purpose were involved in a prior appeal (FA 2102/2010). The court examined whether the present appeal could be decided by reference to the earlier coordinate bench judgment, which the parties conceded covered identical facts. Finding the controversies identical, the court declined to re‑examine the matter afresh and applied the earlier decision. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed, granting the appellant enhanced compensation of Rs 1,20,000 per acre, statutory benefits, and interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as interpreted in State of Maharashtra v. Kailas Shiva Rangari. The original award was otherwise confirmed, with directions on court fees and pending applications.
Issues considered
- Whether the present appeal can be disposed of by reference to the earlier coordinate bench judgment (FA 2102/2010) covering the same land and public purpose.
- Whether the appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation and interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 34
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- interest
- Section 34
- coordinate bench precedent
- enhanced compensation
- statutory benefits
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:44703
FA 2376/08
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
17 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2376 OF 2008
RAMANUJDAS BADRINARAYAN DAGA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Navin S. Shah i/b. Mr. A.R. Kale
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Dande
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
Dated : September 22, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and award dated
7.3.2008 passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga, in
LAR No. 69/2005.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant and the learned AGP have
tendered across the Bar a copy of the judgment and order dated 7.4.2026
passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 2102/2010
(The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Suresh Digambarrao Potdar) and
other connected matters. They submits that the land of the present
appellant was acquired from the same village, for the same public purpose,
and under the very same notification as involved in the said appeal. It is,
therefore, contended that the controversy involved in the present appeal is
squarely covered by the judgment and order in FA 2102/2010 (supra), and
consequently, the present appeal deserves to be disposed of in terms
thereof.
4. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel
FA 2376/08
2
for the respective parties, and in view of the admitted position that the
controversy involved in the present appeal is identical to the one decided by
the Coordinate Bench in FA No. 2102/2010 (supra), I see no reason to take
a different view. The present appeal, therefore, deserves to be disposed of
in terms of the said judgment and order. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The claimant/appellant is entitled to receive enhanced compensation
at the rate of Rs.1,20,000/- per Acre for his irrigated land.
(iii) The claimant shall be entitled to all consequential statutory benefits
on the enhanced compensation in accordance with the provisions of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
(iv) The claimant shall be entitled to interest under Section 34 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, strictly in accordance with the principles laid
down by the Full Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Kailas Shiva
Rangari, 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457.
(v) Save and except the aforesaid modification, the judgments and
award passed by the learned Reference Court stand confirmed.
(vi) The claimant shall not be entitled to the interest for the period of
delay, if any, condoned by this Court caused in filing the present appeal.
(vii) The claimant shall pay the deficit Court-fees, if any.
(viii) The modified award be drawn accordingly.
(ix) Pending Civil Application, if any, stands disposed of.
( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )
ssc/
Checking your session…