Bombay High Court

PRALHAD ASARAM KAKDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE COLLECTOR, JALNA AND ORS

Disposal: PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Bench: SHAILESH P BRAHME

Holding

On the ground of parity, the appellant is entitled to the compensation rate of Rs 8,700 per R.

Summary

The appellant, Pralhad Asaram Kakde, sought enhancement of compensation for semi‑irrigated land acquired for the Jaipur Percolation Tank, arguing that a settlement reached in a related Lok‑Adalat case (First Appeal No.2834 of 2024) should apply by parity. The original award under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Land Acquisition Act was Rs 1,500 per R, later enhanced to Rs 7,335 per R by the Reference Court. The State contended that the settlement in the other matter could not be imposed on the present case and that no merit decision existed. The High Court examined the settlement order dated 13 September 2025, noting that the rates were implicitly accepted and that the competent authority had authorized the settlement for all three related LARs. Relying on the principle of parity and the absence of any objection to the settled rates, the Court held the appellant entitled to the higher rate of Rs 8,700 per R. It allowed the appeal partly, granting the increased compensation but denying interest for the delayed period, while permitting interest under Sections 28 and 34 from the date of award as per State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari. The remainder of the impugned judgment and award was left unchanged.

Issues considered

Whether a settlement and rate agreed in a related Lok‑Adalat appeal can be applied by parity to the present land‑acquisition compensation case.
Whether the appellant is entitled to the higher compensation rate of Rs 8,700 per R for semi‑irrigated land.
Whether interest and statutory benefits are payable on the enhanced compensation.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Land Acquisition Act, 1960 — s. 11, 28, 34, 4

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation enhancement
parity principle
Lok Adalat settlement
interest under Section 28
interest under Section 34
settlement acceptance

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:1098
1 924-FA.2832-24.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2832 OF 2024
PRALHAD ASARAM KAKDE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE COLLECTOR, JALNA AND
OTHERS

...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Kakde S. M.
AGP for Respondent/s-State : Mr. N. D. Raje.
...

CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 08.01.2026

FINAL ORDER :-

1. Heard both sides finally at the admission stage.

2. Being aggrieved by judgment and award dated 01.07.2017 passed in

LAR.No.592 of 2012 the appellant has approached this Court for

enhancement.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed on record compilation

of documents claiming parity. It is submitted that impugned judgment is

passed commonly in three (3) references. Out of it, First Appeal No.2834 of

2024 was filed by Abasaheb Asaram Kakde arising out of LAR.No.594 of

2012. In that case, parties arrived at settlement. Appeal was disposed of in

Lok-Adalat by accepting rate of Rs.5800/- for dry land, Rs.11600/- for

irrigated land, Rs.8700/- for semi irrigated land. Appellant is claiming rate

1/5
2 924-FA.2832-24.odt

of Rs.8,700/- per R. as the land in question is semi irrigated.

4. Learned AGP repels the submissions mainly on the ground that the

settlement arrived in some other matter cannot be made applicable to the

present case. There was no decision on merits in earlier matter. It is

submitted that even the rates amicably agreed by the parties are not

accepted by Lok-Adalat. My attention is adverted to the terms of settlement

and the common order passed by Lok-Adalat on 13.09.2025.

5. Following are the material particulars in the present appeal :

Sr. First L.A.R. No. Gut Total U/sec.4 U/sec.11 SLAO rate Reference Type of
No. Appeal No. No. area notification Award date per R as Court land
date per Award enhanced reference
rate per R court
awarded
924 2832/2024 592/2012 108 01 H 17.07.2010 30.09.2011 Rs.1500/- Rs.7,335/ 1 H 60 R
60 R - for semi
irrigated
land

6. Appellant’s land from village Jaipur, Taluka Mantha, District Jalna was

acquired for Jaipur Percolation Tank No.7. The notification under Section 4

was issued on 17.07.2010. Thereafter award was passed on 30.09.2011.

The land in question is semi irrigated land. SLAO awarded rate of Rs.1500/-

per R. which is enhanced to Rs.7335/- per R. by the Reference Court. The

appellant is claiming rate of Rs.8,700/- per R. for semi irrigated land relying

on the settlement arrived at in First Appeal No.2834 of 2024.

7. By impugned judgment and award, LAR.No.587 of 2012 filed by

2/5
3 924-FA.2832-24.odt

Mahadeo Limbaji Kakde, LAR.No.594 of 2012 filed by Abasaheb Asaram

Kakde, and LAR.No.592 of 2012 filed by Pralhad Asaram Kakde were

decided jointly.

8. It is apparent that facts and circumstances are identical. The lands in

question were from village Jaipur. Arising out of the same common

judgment, First Appeal No.2834 of 2024 was filed by Abasaheb Asaram

Kakde which was settled before Lok Adalat. By order dated 13.09.2025

appeal was disposed of in pursuance of the settlement in Lok-Adalat. The

compilation produced by the appellant shows that by way of settlement, the

rates were agreed between the parties. They are signatories to the

settlement. The letter dated 01.09.2025 issued by the competent authority

would disclose authorization of the competent Officer to settle the matter

not only in respect of LAR.No.594 of 2012 filed by Abasaheb Kakde but in

respect of LAR.No.587 of 2012 and 592 of 2012. The competent authorities

have taken a conscious decision in agreeing with the rate referred in terms

of settlement. After due verification, the matter was settled before the Lok-

Adalat.

9. In order dated 13.09.2025 passed by Panel of Lok-Adalat there is no

express reference to the rates but by implication the agreed rates are

accepted. There is specific reference to the award of interest under Section

28 and 34 of the Act. It cannot be said that rate settled between the parties

are not accepted. The submission of learned AGP cannot be approved.

3/5
4 924-FA.2832-24.odt

10. There is nothing on record to show that rates amicably settled

between the parties in connected First Appeal No.2834 of 2024 were not

agreeable to the respondent authorities. The order passed in Lok-Adalat is

not subjected to challenge or review. First Appeal No.43 of 2023 which was

arising out of identical set of circumstances was also settled in Lok-Adalat.

In the letter dated 01.09.2025 there is reference to the first appeal wherein

authorization was granted for settlement. I am of the considered view that

on the ground of parity, appellant is entitled to rate of Rs.8,700/- per R. It

would be discriminatory to deny the appellant the said rate. I, therefore,

pass following order :

ORDER

(i) First appeal is allowed partly.

(ii) The appellant shall be entitled to receive compensation @ of

Rs.8,700/- per R. for semi irrigated land.

(iii) The appellant shall not be entitled to interest and statutory

benefits for the delayed period.

(iv) The appellant shall be entitled to interest under Section 28 and

34 from the date of award as per law laid down in the judgment

of Full Bench in case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva

Rangari [2016 AIR (Bom.) 141].

4/5
5 924-FA.2832-24.odt

(v) Save and except above modification. Rest of the impugned

judgment and award shall stand unaltered.

(vi) The appellant shall pay deficit court fees, if any.

(vii) Record and proceeding be sent back to the concerned Court, if

any.

(viii) Award be drawn accordingly.

(SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)

...

vmk/-

5/5

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…