SHAHIDAS TRIMBAK MHASKEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:23899
                                                                               904.odt


                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        904 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2637 OF 2022

          Shahidas Trimbak Mhask
          Age – 53 years, Occu – Agri.,
          R/o Village Padli,
          Taluka – Partur, Dist. - Jalna                        … Appellant

                      VERSUS

          The State of Maharashtra
          Through Collector, Jalna and Ors.                     … Respondents

                                         …..
          Mr. Kakade Deepak M., Advocate for Appellant
          Ms. B. B. Gunjal, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2
          Mr. S. W. Munde, Advocate for Respondent No.3
                                         …..
                                       CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
                                           DATE       :   17.06.2026


          PER COURT :

          1.     This is the First Appeal under Section 54 of the Land
          Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the L. A. Act’) by
          the    Original    Claimant     for   further   enhancement    in     the
          compensation for acquisition of his land bearing Gat Nos.50/C, 57,
          18/2, 21/5 and 21/9, admeasuring 3 hectare 34 R, 1 hectare 72 R, 94
          R, 03 R and 56 R, respectively, situated at Village - Padli (Pardhi),
          Taluka - Partur, District – Jalna for the construction of ‘Nimna
          Dudhana Project, Jalna.’.     The     learned   Reference    Court      in
          Reference Application No.360/2012 decided by the Judgment and
          Award      dated   19.12.2016    determined     the   compensation      of
          Rs.11,69,505/- with consequential statutory benefits.

                                                1
                                                                  904.odt


2.   It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Appellant
that, this Court in a bunch of First Appeals, out of which one is
First Appeal No.751/2022 arising out of the same acquisition
proceedings and same Award, by order dated 23.12.2025 enhanced
the compensation to Rs.4,426/- per R for dry land, Rs.6,629/- per R
for seasonal irrigated land, Rs.8,852/- per R for fully irrigated land,
and Rs.2,213/- per R for pot kharab land. He submits that, the
Appellant is entitled for the same enhanced rate on the ground of
parity. He further submits that, there was evidence before the
learned Reference Court that, the land bearing Gat No.50/C was on
the bank of river and there was pipeline from the river for the
purpose of irrigating the land and the Appellant had cultivated
sugarcane and bananas from the said land out of the river water.
He submits that, the learned Reference Court has considered only
13 R land out of Gat No.50/C as semi-irrigated land. He submits
that, considering the said aspect of the matter, the entire Gat
No.50/C be considered as fully irrigated land and the compensation
be accordingly enhanced. He placed reliance on the Judgment in
Chinda Fakira Patil (D) Through L.Rs Vs. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon; AIR 2012 SC 481, wherein, there
was a well in the acquired land and the contention that, there was
no cultivation of sugarcane and wheat and therefore the land
should not be treated as fully irrigated land, was rejected.


3.   The learned Advocate for Respondent No.3 – Acquiring Body
do not dispute that, in the connected Appeals arising out of the
same land acquisition proceedings and award, this Court has
determined the above referred enhanced compensation for the
lands from the same village, which were acquired for the same
                                   2
                                                                904.odt


project, i.e. Nimna Dudhna Project, Jalna. He submits that, there
was no evidence led by the Claimant that, there was a well in Gat
No.50/C. The learned Reference Court considered 7/12 extract
placed on the record and observed that, there were corrections /
scratching in respect of sugarcane and banana. He submits that,
the learned Reference Court has rightly considered the matter on
the basis of the evidence on record and no interference is called for
and the Appeal be disposed of in view of the connected Appeals.


4.   The learned AGP for the Respondent – State opposes the
Appeal.


5.   There is no dispute in respect of the purpose for which the
Appellant’s different lands, as mentioned above, are acquired. A
copy of the order passed by this Court dated 23.12.2025 shows that,
in group of First Appeals preferred by the Claimants, whose lands
came to be acquired for the very same project by way of the same
Award, the Court determined the enhanced compensation. There is
no dispute that, the said decision in respect of similarly placed
Claimants has attained finality. The land of the Appellant is from
the same village. Therefore, on the ground of parity, the Appellant
become entitled for the same rate.


6.   As regards the contention that, the entire Gat No.50/C was
the irrigated land, undisputedly, there is no evidence to show that,
there was a well in the said gat number for the purpose of
irrigation. The claim to consider the said land as fully irrigated
land is made on the basis of pipeline which was taken from the
river water. Undisputedly, there was no evidence as to whether the

                                  3
                                                                 904.odt


said pipeline was taken by obtaining due permission from the
concerned Authority. Secondly, the observations by the learned
Reference Court show that, there was scratching on the 7/12
extract in respect of sugarcane and bananas. With this material on
record, the said decision will not be of any assistance to the
Appellant. The Land Acquisition Officer (LAO) considered the land
of the Appellant as the dry land. The observations in the Judgment
by the learned Reference Court show that, it was not disputed by
the State and LAO that, the land admeasuring 13 R out of the said
Gat No.50/C was seasonally irrigated land, and accordingly that
part of the land was considered as seasonally irrigated by the
learned Reference Court. There is nothing to show that, the
observations made by the learned Reference Court in the
Judgment are contrary to the material on record. Thus, I see no
merit in the submissions of the learned Advocate for the Appellant
that, the land Gat No.50/C be considered as fully irrigated land.

7.    In view of the above, the following order is passed :-

                               ORDER

[a]   The Appeal is partly allowed.

[b]   The Appellant is entitled to receive the rate of Rs.4,426/- per
      R for dry land and Rs.6,629/- per R for seasonally irrigated
      land on the ground of parity.

[c]   The Appellant shall be entitled to interest from the date
      of the final Award as per the Judgment in the State of
      Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari; 2016 (4) All
      MR 513.



                                   4
                                                                 904.odt


[d]    Save and except above modification, the Judgment and Award
       passed by the learned Reference Court shall stand unaltered.


[e]    The Appellant shall not be entitled to receive interest and
       statutory benefits for the delayed period.


[f]    The Appellant shall pay the deficit court fees, if any.


[h]    Award be drawn up accordingly.


[i]    Appeal is disposed of accordingly.



                                            [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]




Sameer/June-2026




                                    5