SHAIKH LADDU SHAIKH AHMADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:43180

                                                      1
                                                                     31 FA 2640 OF 2022

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                     31 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2640 OF 2022

                                    SHAIKH LADDU SHAIKH AHMAD
                                                VERSUS
                               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
                                                   ...
                     Mr. D. M. Kakade, Advocate for Appellant
                     Mr. A. V. Lavte, AGP for Respondent-State
                     Mr. Shyam C. Arora, Advocate for Respondent No.3
                                                   …

                                            CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                            DATED : 21st September 2026

                     P.C. :-

                     .         Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award dated

                     24.08.2016 passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior

                     Division, Jalna in Land Acquisition Reference No.772 of 2010,

                     the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement in the

                     compensation.

                     2.        With able assistance of the learned Advocates for the

                     respective parties, I have perused the record and proceeding

                     in the appeal.

                     3.        Considering the short issue arising after hearing the

                     rival arguments, I have taken up the First Appeal for final

                     disposal at the admission stage at the instance of both the

                     sides.
                               2
                                                31 FA 2640 OF 2022

4.    Appellant’s land admeasuring 2 Hectares 2 R situated at

village Padali (Pardhi), Taluka Partur, District Jalna was

acquired by the respondent authorities for Nimna Dudhana

Project. The land acquisition process was conducted as per the

procedure and the award was passed.

5.    Feeling aggrieved by the deficit compensation granted

by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant

approached the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894. For the reasons recorded in the

judgment,    the   Reference       Court   observed   that     the

claimant/appellant was entitled for enhancement. However,

while granting enhancement, a rate of Rs.2,500/- per R was

granted for 1 Hectare 89 R observing that the said area was

non-irrigated land. The Reference Court further granted

compensation for 13 R land observing in paragraph No.11 of

its judgment that the said piece of land was semi-irrigated.

6.    Feeling aggrieved thereby, the claimant is before this

Court in this appeal.

7.    At the outset, Mr. D. M. Kakade, learned Advocate for

the appellant/claimant cites an order dated 23.12.2025

passed by this Court in a bunch of appeals led by First Appeal

No.751 of 2022 with connected matters. Mr. Kakade submits
                                 3
                                                   31 FA 2640 OF 2022

that the group of appeals arises out of the same land

acquisition proceedings which are the subject matter of the

present appeal. He would submit that this Court after hearing

the parties, fixed the rates as follows:

(i) Rs.4,426/- per R for dry land;
(ii) Rs.6,629/- per R for seasonal irrigated land;
(iii) Rs.8,852/- per R for fully irrigated land;
(iv) Rs.2,213/- per R for pot kharab land.


8.    Mr. Kakade submits that his present appeal be decided

as per the rates fixed by this Court in the cited matters. He has

reservation about the findings rendered by the Reference

Court whereby the rate applicable to semi-irrigated land is

made applicable only to the extent of 13 R. He would submit

that it is an undisputed fact that a well was situated in the

acquired land. He objects as to why the Reference Court

restricted the rate for semi-irrigated land to the extent of 13 R.

Thus, he submits that the rate applicable for semi-irrigated

land as granted by this Court in the cited matter (supra), be

made applicable to the entire land i.e. 2 Hectares 2 R land

acquired by the acquiring body.

9.    Mr. Shyam Arora, learned Advocate for the acquiring

body would fairly agree with the fact that this Court in the
                               4
                                                31 FA 2640 OF 2022

cited First Appeals has fixed the rates for four types of land.

There is also no dispute that the present appeal is covered by

the cited order. However, Mr. Arora would strongly advocate

the findings recorded by the Trial Court/Reference Court

whereby 13 R land was held to be semi-irrigated land.

10.   He would submit that the observations recorded by the

Reference Court are on the basis of the 7/12 extract and the

crop pattern. Thus, while acceding to the submission of the

appellant that the rate for compensation would be governed

by the order passed by this Court in the cited matter,

Mr. Arora submits that the compensation can be awarded

holding only 13 R as seasonal irrigated land.

11.   With able assistance of the learned Advocates for the

respective parties, I have gone through the case papers. Now,

the only issue is as to how much of the acquired land has to be

treated as seasonal irrigated. Suffice to note, Mr. Kakade fairly

submits that he would be claiming compensation only by

treating the entire land as semi-irrigated land. I have seen the

7/12 extract at Exhibit-28 from the record and proceedings

too. There is nothing on record to hold that only 13 R land out

of the total 2 Hectares 2 R land was under irrigation or was

semi-irrigated. Once it is held that the land had a well, unless
                                   5
                                                    31 FA 2640 OF 2022

there is concrete evidence to show that only a specific portion

was under irrigation, entire land has to be held under

irrigation, either full or semi.

12.   In view of this, I find no reasoning rendered by the

Reference Court as to why only 13 R be held entitled for

compensation as seasonal irrigated land. Considering that this

is a case of beneficial legislation, I am of the considered view

that once the Court finds that the claimant is entitled to a

higher benefit on account of the quality of the land, such

benefit cannot be restricted to a limited portion of the land in

the absence of any concrete evidence to the contrary. The

claimant would therefore, be entitled to such benefit for the

entire land. In view of this, I pass following order :

                             ORDER

      I.     The First Appeal is partly allowed.
      II.    The    appellant      is   held   entitled   for
      compensation at the rate of Rs.6629/- per R
      (applicable for seasonal irrigated land) for the
      entire area under acquisition i.e. 2 Hectares 2 R.
      III.   The acquiring body shall deposit the
      enhanced compensation before this Court within
      a period of sixteen (16) months from today,
      together with accrued interest thereon.
                                 6
                                                      31 FA 2640 OF 2022

      IV.    The appellant shall be entitled to interest
      under Sections 28 and 34 of the L.A. Act in
      terms of law laid down by Full Bench of this
      Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs.
      Kailash Shiva Rangari reported in 2016 AIR
      (Bom.) 141.
      V.     The appellant shall not be entitled to
      interest and statutory benefit for delayed period.
      VI.    The     appellant   shall     be     entitled   to
      withdraw the amount deposited with interest,
      without making any separate application for
      withdrawal.
      VII.   While depositing the enhancement, any
      amount already deposited shall be adjusted.
      VIII. The appellant shall pay the requisite
      additional     court   fees     on    the     enhanced
      compensation, if applicable.
      IX.    Save     and    except      above,     impugned
      Judgment and Award passed by Reference Court
      shall stand unaltered.
      X.     The Record and Proceedings be sent back
      to Reference Court.
      XI.    Award be drawn up accordingly.
      XII.   Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand
      disposed of.



                                     ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )
PRW