THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, OSMANABAD AND ANRversusANKUSH DEORAO SHINDE AND ANR

2026:BHC-AUG:43312
                                                                    14-FA-2799-2017 (+1).odt
                                               1

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                               14 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2799 OF 2017

           The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Osmanabad And Another
                                            VERSUS
                              Ankush Deorao Shinde And Another

                                             ……
                               15 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2800 OF 2017

           The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Osmanabad And Another
                                            VERSUS
                            Harishchandra Sheku Deokate (Dead)
                             Through L.Rs. Mathurabai And Others

                                              ……
          Mr. G.B. Rajale, Advocate for Appellant-Acquiring Body
          Mr. S.N. Patne, Advocate for Respondents-Claimants
                                              ……

                                        CORAM      : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                        DATE       : 16 SEPTEMBER, 2026
          PER COURT :

          1.     Heard the learned counsel Mr. G.B. Rajale, for the appellant-

          Acquiring Body and the learned counsel Mr. S.N. Patne, for the respondent-

          claimants.


          2.     The present appeals take exception to the common impugned

          Judgment and Award dated 03.05.2013 passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil

          Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, in Land Acquisition References Nos.760

          of 2007 and 759 of 2007, whereby the learned Reference Court partly

          allowed the references under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

          and enhanced the compensation payable to the respondent-claimants along

          with statutory benefits.
                                                          14-FA-2799-2017 (+1).odt
                                    2


3.     The lands belonging to the respondent-claimants, admeasuring 1

Hectare 51 R, 25 R, 1 Hectare 33 R, 3 R and 52 R and 1 Hectare 16 R from

Gat Nos.653, 437, 450, 644, 641 and 598, respectively, situated at village

Raghuchiwadi, Taluka and District Osmanabad, came to be acquired for the

purpose of Raghuchiwadi Minor Tank. The Notification under Section 4 of

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 11.03.1994. Thereafter, the

Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an Award under Section 11 of the

Act on 01.08.1997, determining the market value of the acquired lands at

the rate of Rs.220/- per R. Being dissatisfied with the compensation so

determined, the claimants accepted the amount under protest and sought

references under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of compensation.


4.     Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by

the parties and by relying upon the judgments passed in L.A.R. Nos.1400 of

2002 and 1409 of 2002, the learned Reference Court, by the impugned

Judgment and Award dated 03.05.2013, enhanced the market value of the

acquired lands to Rs.60,000/- per acre, along with all statutory benefits.

Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant-Acquiring Body has preferred the

present appeals.


5.     Learned counsel Mr. Rajale, appearing for the appellant-Acquiring

Body, submitted that the learned Reference Court committed an error in

enhancing the compensation by relying upon the judgments passed in
                                                           14-FA-2799-2017 (+1).odt
                                     3

earlier L.A.R. Nos.1400 of 2002 and 1409 of 2002, without there being any

independent evidence on record to justify such enhancement. It is submitted

that the judgments passed in the earlier L.A.Rs. could not have been treated

as binding for determining the market value of the acquired lands and that

the learned Reference Court has awarded excessive compensation without

any independent legal basis. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned

Judgment and Award deserves to be set aside.


6.     Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-claimants supported

the impugned Judgment and Award. He submitted that the learned

Reference Court has rightly relied upon the judgments passed in the earlier

L.A.R. Nos.1400 of 2002 and 1409 of 2002, wherein the lands were

acquired for the same project and from the same village and the acquisition

arose out of the same Award. He further submitted that, after making

appropriate deductions while determining the market value, the learned

Reference Court has awarded just and reasonable compensation. Therefore,

no interference is warranted with the impugned Judgment and Award.


7.     I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel

for the appellant-Acquiring Body as well as the learned counsel for the

respondent-claimants and, with their able assistance, I have carefully

perused the impugned Judgment and Award as well as the material

available on record.
                                                            14-FA-2799-2017 (+1).odt
                                      4

8.     The record reveals that the learned Reference Court has relied upon

the judgments passed in earlier L.A.R. Nos.1400 of 2002 and 1409 of 2002,

wherein the market value of the lands acquired for the same project was

determined at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per acre. Though the determination of

market value in an earlier L.A.R. cannot, by itself, be treated as a binding

precedent for determining the market value in every subsequent case, where

the lands are acquired for the same project and are similarly situated, such

earlier determination can certainly be taken into consideration as a relevant

piece of evidence and as a guiding principle for determining the market

value of the acquired lands. It is also brought to my notice that the

judgments and awards passed in the said earlier L.A.Rs., on which the

present references came to be decided, have not been assailed. In the facts

and circumstances of the present case, therefore, I find no reason to take a

different view from the determination made by the learned Reference Court

on the basis of the aforesaid judgments.


9.     However, as regards the grant of interest is concerned, it is noticed

that the learned Reference Court has directed payment of interest from the

date of Section 4 notification till the date of the Award. Such direction is

contrary to the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in State of

Maharashtra v. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457 . Therefore, to

that extent, the impugned Judgment and Award requires modification.
                                                             14-FA-2799-2017 (+1).odt
                                      5


10.     In view of the aforesaid discussion, the market value determined by

the learned Reference Court at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per acre does not call

for interference. However, the direction regarding payment of interest

requires modification in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench. Hence,

the following order:


                                  ORDER


(i)     The First Appeals are partly allowed.


(ii)    The common Judgment and Award dated 03.05.2013 passed by the

learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, in Land

Acquisition References Nos.760 of 2007 and 759 of 2007, is modified to the

extent of interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.


(iii)   The enhancement of compensation granted by the learned Reference

Court at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per acre is maintained.


(iv)    The respondent-claimants shall be entitled to all consequential

statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation in accordance with the

provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.


(v)     The respondent-claimants shall be entitled to interest under Section

34 of the Act strictly in accordance with the law laid down by the Full Bench

of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Kailas Shiva Rangari, (supra).
                                                                    14-FA-2799-2017 (+1).odt
                                          6


(vi)       Save and except the modification made hereinabove, the common

Judgment and Award dated 03.05.2013 passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil

Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, in L.A.R. Nos.760 of 2007 and 759 of

2007, shall remain unaltered.


(vii)      The modified Award be drawn accordingly.


(viii)     The respondent-claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount

deposited by the appellant-Acquiring Body in this Court, along with accrued

interest thereon, subject to adjustment, if any, necessitated on account of the

modification of interest under Section 34 of the Act.


(ix)       Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.




                                               [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                         JUDGE
S P Rane