Bombay High Court

SHRIDHAR MADHAVRAO PATIL AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Bench: NEERAJ P DHOTE

Holding

The court held that the appellants are entitled to the enhanced compensation rates of Rs 6,516 per R for dry lands and Rs 13,032 per R for irrigated lands, with tree compensation at 60% of the valuation report and interest from the date of the final award.

Summary

The appellants, original claimants whose lands were acquired for the Borol Storage Tank project in Deoni (Kh), Latur, appealed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 seeking enhanced compensation. They relied on a prior judgment of this Court (25.03.2026) that had increased compensation to Rs 6,516 per R for dry land and Rs 13,032 per R for irrigated land. The court examined the similarity of the lands, the timing of the Section 4 and Section 6 notifications, and the principle of parity with the earlier case. It held that the appellants are entitled to the same enhanced rates, to receive 60% of the valuation report for tree compensation, and to interest from the date of the final award, subject to certain limitations. The appeals were partly allowed, the earlier awards were modified accordingly, and the acquiring body was directed to deposit the enhanced amounts within six months.

Issues considered

The appellants' entitlement to the enhanced compensation rates awarded in the earlier judgment under the principle of parity.
Whether the lands of the appellants are comparable to those in the earlier case despite different notification dates.
The appropriate rate of compensation for trees and whether 60% of the valuation report applies.
The entitlement to interest and statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4, 54, 6

Subjects

Land acquisition
Compensation enhancement
Section 54
Parity principle
Valuation
Tree compensation
Interest on compensation
Statutory benefits

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:23913
941.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
941 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1823 OF 2018
1) Gopal Tukaram Pate
Age 68 years, Occu: Agril,
All R/o Deoni (Kh), Taluka Deoni,
District Latur. ….Appellant
(Orig. Claimant)
VERSUS

1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Collector, Latur.
2) The Executive Engineer,
Latur Medium Project, Latur. … Respondents
…..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2540 OF 2018
1) Shridhar Madhavrao Patil
Age 70 years, Occu Agril,
2) Padminbai w/o. Shridhar Patil
Age 46 years, Occu Agril,
Both R/o. Deoni (Kh), Taluka Deoni
District Luat .....Appellants
(Orig. Claimants)
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Collector, Latur.

2) The Executive Engineer,
Latur Medium Project, Latur. … Respondents
…..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2541 OF 2018
1) Laxman s/o Hanmantrao Garad
Age 62 years, Occ Agril,
R/o. Deoni (Kh), Taluka Deoni,
District Latur … Appellant
(Orig. Claimant)
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
1
941.odt

Through The Collector, Latur.

2) The Executive Engineer,
Latur Medium Project, Latur. … Respondents
…..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2542 OF 2018
* Sakharam Deorao Garad
Died Thro. Lrs.
1) Babarao Sakhram Garad
Age 65 years, Occ Agril,
2) Sampata w/o Madhav Khonde,
Age 42 years, Occ H. H. and Agril,
All R/o. Deoni (Kh), Taluka Deoni,
District Latur. … Appellants
(Orig. Claimants)
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Collector, Latur.

2) The Executive Engineer,
Latur Medium Project, Latur. … Respondents
…..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2543 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 105 OF 2025
IN FA/2543/2018
1) Pralhad Tulshiram Pate
Age 70 years, Occ Agril,
2) Madhav s/o Pralhad Pate
Age 37 years, Occ Agril,
3) Govind s/o. Prahlad Pate
Age 41 years, Occ Agril,
All R/o. Deoni (Kh), Taluka Deoni,
District Latur. … Appellants
(Orig. Claimants)
VERSUS

2
941.odt

1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Collector, Latur.

2) The Executive Engineer,
Latur Medium Project, Latur. … Respondents
______________________________________________________________
Appearance :
Mr. H. B. Nandagavale a/w Mr. Ashwin V. Sakolkar h/f Mr. V. G.
Sakolkar, Advocate for the Appellant/s in all Appeals
Mr. S. M. Ganachari, AGP for Respondent No.1 in all Appeals
Mr. Anand Chaware, Advocate for Respondent No.2 in all Appeals
______________________________________________________________

CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
DATE : 17.06.2026

COMMON JUDGMENT :

1. These are the First Appeals under Section 54 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the L. A. Act’) by

the Original Claimants for enhanced compensation for acquisition

of their lands for the construction of ‘Borol Storage Tank’ at Village

Deoni (Kh), Taluka – Deoni, District – Latur.

2. Since the Land Reference Application Nos.479/2007,

475/2007, 480/2007, 477/2007 and 476/2007 are decided by a

Common Judgment and Award dated 15.04.2008 by the learned

Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedpur Camp at Udgir, these

Appeals are decided by this Common Judgment.

3
941.odt

3. Heard the learned Advocate for the – Claimants, learned

Advocate for the Acquiring Body and the learned AGP for the

Respondents – State. With their assistance, perused the papers on

record.

4. The chart below shows the necessary and undisputed aspects

of the matters :-

First Appeal filed LAR No. Gat Area Compensation Ref. Court
by Claimants No. awarded by Awarded
LAO

F.A.No.1823/2018 479/2007 24 37 R 990/- per R 6,400/-Per R
(Jirayat) (Bagayat)
F.A.No.2540/2018 475/2007 23 72 R -do- 3200/- per R
(Jirayat)
F.A.No.2541/2018 480/2007 22 1 H 67 R -do- 3200/- per R
(Jirayat)
F.A.No.2542/2018 477/2007 22 42 R -do- 3200/- per R
(Jirayat)
F.A.No.2543/2018 476/2007 24 1 H 93 R -do- 3200/- per R
(Jirayat)
1 Acquisition purpose For construction Borol Storage Tank, Borol, Deoni (K)
Sindhikamath, Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur.

2 Notification u/s 4 Gazzette Dt. 03/02/2005 Village 21/02/2005

3 Notification u/s 6 Gazzette Dt. 14/07/2005 Village 11/07/2005

4 Possession 03/02/2005

4 Claim Claimed at Rs.5,000/- per R

5 L.A.O. Award 25/05/2006

6 L.A.O. Awarded Rs.990/- per R for Jirayat Land.
7 Reference Reference filed by Claimant
8 Reference Court Dt.15/04/2008
Award
9 Reference Court Rs.3200/- per R for Jirayat Land.
Awarded. Rs.6400/- per R for irrigated land.

4
941.odt

5. The Appellants are claiming enhancement on the basis of the

Judgment 25.03.2026 passed by this Court in group of First

Appeals and Cross-Objection therein, one of which is First Appeal

No.3028/2011 with Cross-Objection No.247/2025. According to the

learned Advocate for the Appellants, the Appellants stand on the

same footing as that of the Claimants in both Cross-objections,

wherein, this Court enhanced compensation @ Rs.6,516/- per R for

the dry lands and the rate of Rs.13,032/- per R. for the irrigated

lands. He placed on record a copy of the said decision passed by

this Court.

6. The learned Advocate for the Acquiring Body submits that,

though this Court has enhanced the compensation to the similarly

placed Claimants, the Appellants will have to show the similarity

between their lands and the lands, which were the subject matter

of those Appeals and Cross-objections. He does not dispute the

aforesaid Judgment of this Court in the aforesaid Appeals and

Cross-objections.

7. It is submitted by the learned AGP that, appropriate orders

be passed.

5
941.odt

8. Perusal of the said Judgment of this Court shows that, the

acquired lands of the Claimants therein were situated in the

Village – Borol, Deoni (Kh), Sindhikamath, Taluka – Deoni,

District – Latur and the said lands were acquired for the same

project, i.e. construction of ‘Borol Storage Tank’. Undisputedly, the

Appellants’ lands were situated in the adjacent Village, i.e. Deoni

(Kh) and were acquired for the very same project. The only

different is that of the issuance of Sections 4 and 6 notifications

under the L. A. Act. In the present Appeals, Section 4 notification

was published in village on 21.02.2005 and Section 6 notification

was published on 11.07.2005; whereas in the disposed off Appeals

Section 4 notification was published in Gazzette on 19.08.2004 and

Section 6 notification was published in Gazzette on 24.03.2005.

This shows that, the notification in the said disposed off Appeals,

was prior to the notifications, which were issued in the present

matters. There is no dispute in respect of the quality of the lands

of the Appellants. Some of the lands are held to be dry lands and

some are held to be irrigated lands. It is needless to state that,

there cannot be any sub-categorization for the dry lands and for the

irrigated lands. This being the position, and nothing to show that,

the Appellants are not entitled for the said rate, on the ground of

parity, the Appellants would be entitled for the rate of Rs.6,516/-

6
941.odt

per R for the dry lands and Rs.13,032/- per R. for the irrigated

lands.

9. The Judgment passed by the learned Reference Court shows

that, the separate compensation for the trees came to be

determined. But, this Court in the aforesaid Judgment determined

the compensation for the trees to the extent of 60% of the valuation

report, which includes the earlier amount of compensation awarded

by the L.A.O and the learned Reference Court. This being so, on

the ground of parity, the Appellants would be entitled for the same

rate of compensation for the trees.

10. In view of the above observations, no more discussion is

required. Hence, the following order :

ORDER

[a] First Appeal No.1823/2018, First Appeal
No.2540/2018, First Appeal No.2541/2018, First
Appeal No.2542/2018 and First Appeal No.2543/2018
are partly allowed.

[b] The Appellants would be entitled for the rate of
Rs.6,516/- per R. for the dry lands and the rate of
Rs.13,032/- per R. for irrigated lands.

7
941.odt

[c] The Appellants would be entitled for compensation to
the extent of 60% of the valuation report, which
includes the earlier amount of compensation awarded
by the L.A.O and the learned Reference Court.

[d] The Appellants would be entitled for the interest from
the date of final Award.

[e] The Appellants shall not be entitled for the interest
and the statutory benefits for the delayed period, if
any, condoned by this Court.

[f] The Award passed by learned Reference Court in LAR
Nos.479/2007, 475/2007, 480/2007, 477/2007 and
476/2007 stand modified accordingly.

[g] The Appellants shall pay deficit court fee, if any,
within a period of four (04) weeks.

[h] The Acquiring Body to deposit the enhanced
compensation amount along with statutory benefits
and interest, within a period of six (06) months from
today in the office of this Court.

[i] Appeals stand disposed of accordingly.

[j] Pending civil applications, if any, are disposed of
accordingly.

[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]
Sameer/June-2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…