Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

SAKHARAM DEORAO GARAD DIED THRO. LRS. BABARAO SAKHRAM GARAD AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal
PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED

Holding

The court held that the appellants are entitled to 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 dated 25.03.2026, which had enhanced compensation for similarly situated claimants to Rs 6,516 per R for dry land and Rs 13,032 per R for irrigated land. The court examined the parity of the lands, noting that the only difference was the dates of the Section 4 and Section 6 notifications, and found no material distinction. It held that the appellants were entitled to the same enhanced rates, to receive 60% of the valuation report for tree compensation, and to be awarded interest from the date of the final award, subject to certain limitations. The court partially allowed the appeals, modified the earlier awards accordingly, and ordered the acquiring body to deposit the enhanced amounts.

Issues considered

  • The appellants' entitlement to the enhanced compensation rates awarded in the earlier judgment.
  • Whether parity exists between the appellants' lands and those of the earlier claimants despite different notification dates.
  • The appropriate rate of compensation for trees and the entitlement to interest.

Legislation cited

Subjects

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

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:23909
                                                                        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



                                       8


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.