Bombay High Court
SHAIKH KHALID SHAIKH AHMADversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The appellant is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs 6,629 per R (seasonally irrigated land) for the entire 3 hectares 17 R acquired.
Summary
The appellant, Shaikh Khalid Shaikh Ahmad, owned 3 hectares 17 R of land in Padali (Pardhi) that was acquired for the Nimna Dudhana Project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at a rate for dry land, but the Reference Court enhanced part of it, granting Rs 2,500 per R for non‑irrigated land and Rs 6,629 per R for only 13 R deemed semi‑irrigated. The appellant appealed, arguing that the entire parcel should be treated as semi‑irrigated because a well existed on the land and there was no evidence to limit irrigation to 13 R. The State accepted the court‑fixed rates but defended the Reference Court’s limited classification. The High Court examined the 7/12 extract, found no basis to restrict the irrigation classification, and held that the entire land qualifies for the semi‑irrigated rate. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed and the appellant was awarded compensation at Rs 6,629 per R for the whole 3 ha 17 R, with interest provisions under the Land Acquisition Act.
Issues considered
- Whether the entire acquired land should be classified as semi‑irrigated for compensation purposes.
- Whether the Reference Court’s limitation of the semi‑irrigated rate to only 13 R is justified.
- What rate of compensation is applicable under the Land Acquisition Act in the absence of concrete evidence of partial irrigation.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 18, 28, 34
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation enhancement
- irrigation classification
- Section 18 Land Acquisition Act
- interest under Sections 28 and 34
- appellate jurisdiction
- beneficial legislation
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:43487
1
918-fa-2803-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2803 OF 2022
Shaikh Khalid Shaikh Ahmad
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
...
Mr. D. M. Kakade, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondents-State
Mr. Madhav Gude, Advocate for Respondent no.3
…..
CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
DATED : 22ND SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :-
. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award dated
26.08.2016 passed by the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Jalna in Land Acquisition Reference No.773 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
918-fa-2803-2022
4. Appellant’s land admeasuring 3 Hectares 17 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 3 Hectare 04 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
3
918-fa-2803-2022
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
land as granted by this Court in the cited matter (supra), be
made applicable to the entire land i.e. 3 Hectares 17 R land
acquired by the acquiring body.
4
918-fa-2803-2022
9. Mr. Madhav Gude, 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. Gude 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. Gude 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 seasonally 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-25 from the record and proceedings
5
918-fa-2803-2022
too. There is nothing on record to hold that only 13 R land out
of the total 3 Hectares 17 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 :
ORDER
I. The First Appeal is partly allowed.
II. The appellant is held entitled for
compensation at the rate of Rs.6,629/- per R
(applicable for seasonal irrigated land) for the
entire area under acquisition i.e. 3 Hectares
17 R.
6
918-fa-2803-2022
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 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. )
Rushikesh/2026
Checking your session…