SANTOSH PANDHARI CHAMLEversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ANR

2026:BHC-AUG:40634
                                                                       28-FA-2382-2012.odt
                                               1

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             28 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2382 OF 2012

                                  Santosh Pandhari Chamle
                                          VERSUS
                            The State of Maharashtra And Another

                                          AND
                              FIRST APPEAL NO. 2381 OF 2012

                                  Pandhari Vithoba Chamle
                                          VERSUS
                            The State of Maharashtra And Another

                                           ……
          Mr. Rahul R. Deshmukh, Advocate for Appellant
          Mr. S.S. Dande, AGP for Respondent No.1-State
                                           ……

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


          1.     First Appeal No.2381 of 2012 is not on board. Upon mentioning, the

          same is taken on board.


          2.     Heard learned counsel Mr. Rahul R. Deshmukh for the appellants

          and learned AGP Mr. S.S. Dande for respondent No.1-State.


          3.     By these appeals, the appellants-original claimants challenge the

          common Judgment and Award dated 19.06.2012 passed by the learned Civil

          Judge, Senior Division, Nilanga in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.21 of

          2009 and 20 of 2009 respectively. By the said Judgment and Award, the
                                                                28-FA-2382-2012.odt
                                         2

learned Reference Court enhanced the market value of the acquired land

and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.2,813/- per R, considering the

acquired land as seasonally irrigated.


4.     The lands belonging to the respective claimants, situated at village

Ganeshwadi, Taluka Shirur Anantpal, District Latur, were acquired for the

purpose of Ganeshwadi Percolation Tank No.3. The particulars of the

acquired lands are as under:


         Sr. No.      LAR No.            Survey/Gat No.   Area Acquired
            1.       20 of 2009              141/1            98 R
            2.       21 of 2009               141             96 R


5.     The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

(for short, “the Act”) was published on 17.11.2004. Thereafter, the Special

Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “the SLAO”) passed the Award under

Section 11 of the Act on 29.10.2007. The SLAO determined the market

value at the rate of Rs.980/- per R for dry land and Rs.1,980/- per R for

bagayat land. The claimants accepted the compensation under protest and

sought reference under Section 18 of the Act.


6.     Before the learned Reference Court, the claimants relied upon the

sale instance at Exhibit 35 dated 05.03.1999. The learned Reference Court

determined the market value of dry land at Rs.1,875/- per R. Considering

the acquired land as seasonally irrigated, it applied the factor of one and a

half times to the dry-land rate and awarded compensation at the rate of
                                                                 28-FA-2382-2012.odt
                                      3

Rs.2,813/- per R. Being dissatisfied with the said determination and seeking

further enhancement, the claimants have preferred the present appeals.


7.     Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned

Reference Court ought to have treated the entire acquired land as irrigated

land and not merely as seasonally irrigated land. He submits that there was

a well and a source of water in the acquired land. The Talathi's certificate at

Exhibit 31 and the entries in the 7/12 extracts indicate the existence of a

source of water. The crop pattern also indicates cultivation of crops such as

jawar and sugarcane. According to the learned counsel, these circumstances

establish that the acquired lands were irrigated and, therefore, the

appellants are entitled to compensation at a higher rate.


8.     Learned counsel further submits that there were 17 trees standing on

the acquired land, whereas the SLAO granted compensation only in respect

of 12 trees. He submits that the compensation awarded towards the trees is

inadequate and that the appellants are also entitled for further enhancement

towards acquired trees. He, therefore, prays to allow the appeal by

enhancing the compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court.


9.     Per contra, learned AGP Mr. S.S. Dande supports the impugned

Judgment and Award. He submits that the existence of a well by itself does

not establish that the entire acquired land was irrigated. He points out that,

while passing the Award, the SLAO had treated only 25 R of the land as
                                                                  28-FA-2382-2012.odt
                                       4

bagayat and the remaining 71 R as jirayat land in respect of the land

involved in L.A.R. No.21 of 2009. According to him, the evidence on record

does not establish availability of assured water for the entire acquired area.


10.    Learned AGP further submits that the learned Reference Court has

already considered the evidence regarding the well, the 7/12 extracts and

the crop pattern and, on that basis, has treated the acquired lands as

seasonally irrigated. The LAO has awarded compensation towards trees at

the rate of Rs.10,000/- per tree. Thus, according to the learned AGP, the

compensation awarded is just and proper and no further enhancement is

warranted.


11.    I have considered the rival submissions and perused the Record and

Proceedings and the impugned Judgment and Award.


12.    The principal contentions raised by the appellants are regarding the

nature of the acquired land and the compensation awarded towards the

trees. As regards the nature of the land, the appellants rely upon the

Talathi's certificate at Exhibit 31 and the 7/12 extracts. The certificate

indicates the existence of an ancestral well in the concerned lands and the

7/12 extracts also indicate a source of water. The crop entries relied upon by

the appellants show cultivation of crops including jawar and sugarcane. It is,

therefore, submitted that the entire acquired land ought to have been

treated as irrigated land instead of seasonally irrigated land.
                                                                  28-FA-2382-2012.odt
                                       5


13.     On perusal of the evidence, it is clear that there was a source of

water. However, the mere existence of a well or a source of water cannot, by

itself, establish that the entire acquired area had assured irrigation. The

material on record does not establish the availability of assured water for

cultivation of the entire acquired land. It is also relevant that, while passing

the Award, the SLAO had treated only a portion of the land as bagayat and

the remaining portion as jirayat. The learned Reference Court, upon

considering the evidence on record, extended the benefit of seasonal

irrigation to the acquired land.


14.     The learned Reference Court determined the market value of dry

land at Rs.1,875/- per R and, considering the acquired land to be seasonally

irrigated, applied the factor of one and a half times. Thus, the calculation

comes to Rs.1,875/- × 1.5 = Rs.2,812.50 per R, which was rounded off to

Rs.2,813/- per R. The appellants have not brought on record sufficient

material to establish that the entire acquired land had assured irrigation so

as to warrant adoption of a higher rate. The finding of the learned Reference

Court treating the acquired land as seasonally irrigated, therefore, does not

call for interference.


15.     As regards the compensation towards trees, learned counsel for the

appellants submits that there were 17 trees standing on the acquired land,

whereas the SLAO granted compensation only in respect of 12 trees, which
                                                                 28-FA-2382-2012.odt
                                         6

has not been interfered with by the learned Reference in absence of cogent

evidence warranting enhancement in respect of trees. The appellants have

not demonstrated any error in the assessment made by the learned

Reference Court or placed sufficient material before this Court to warrant

further enhancement under this head.


16.        Thus, on consideration of the evidence as a whole, the learned

Reference Court has rightly considered the source of water, the crop pattern

and the other material placed on record while determining the nature of the

acquired land. The finding that the acquired land was seasonally irrigated

and the consequential determination of compensation at Rs.2,813/- per R

cannot be said to be erroneous or unreasonable. Similarly, the compensation

awarded towards the trees does not warrant any further enhancement.


17.        The appellants have, therefore, failed to establish that the market

value determined by the learned Reference Court is inadequate or that any

further enhancement is warranted. No interference with the impugned

Judgment and Award is, therefore, called for. Therefore, the appeals deserve

to be dismissed.


18.        Both the First Appeals are dismissed.



                                              [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                        JUDGE
S P Rane