SHAIKH KHAJA SHAIKH AHMAD (DIED) THR LRS SHAIKH ASHABEE AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:46448



                                                      1
                                                                    953 FA 2641 OF 2022

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                    953 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2641 OF 2022

                      SHAIKH KHAJA SHAIKH AHMAD (DIED) THR LRS SHAIKH
                                          ASHABEE AND ORS
                                                VERSUS
                               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
                                                   ...
                     Mr. D. M. Kakade, Advocate for Appellants
                     Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – State
                     Mr. S. G. Chincholkar, Advocate for Respondent No.3
                                                   …

                                            CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                            DATED : 1st October 2026

                     P.C. :-

                     .         Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award dated

                     23.08.2016 passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior

                     Division, Jalna in Land Acquisition Reference No.274 of 2010,

                     the appellants/claimants are 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
                                 2
                                                      953 FA 2641 OF 2022

disposal at the admission stage at the instance of both the

sides.

4.       Appellants’ 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 appellants

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

claimants/appellants      were      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 claimants/appellants are

before this Court in this appeal.
                                 3
                                                   953 FA 2641 OF 2022

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

the appellants/claimants 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

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
                               4
                                              953 FA 2641 OF 2022

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. S. G. Chincholkar, learned Advocate for the

acquiring body would fairly agree with the fact that this Court

in the 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. Chincholkar 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

appellants that the rate for compensation would be governed

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

Mr. Chincholkar 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
                                   5
                                                953 FA 2641 OF 2022

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-33 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

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 :
                           6
                                              953 FA 2641 OF 2022

                      ORDER

I.     The First Appeal is partly allowed.
II.    The appellants are 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.
IV.    The appellants 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 appellants shall not be entitled to
interest and statutory benefit for delayed period.
VI.    The    appellants     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 appellants shall pay the requisite
additional    court   fees     on    the     enhanced
compensation, if applicable.
                                7
                                               953 FA 2641 OF 2022

      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