Bombay High Court
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. OBADversusMANOHAR KRISHNA CHAUDHARI (WARIK) AND ANR
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The court held that the compensation rate awarded in the earlier case should be applied to the present appeals, allowing partial enhancement of compensation and interest under Section 34.
Summary
The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division (the acquiring body) appealed against awards of compensation granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and subsequently enhanced by reference courts for lands acquired for the Wadala Minor Irrigation Tank project. The original awards paid Rs.17,000 per hectare, which the reference courts raised to Rs.50,000 per acre for seasonally irrigated lands, but the acquiring body argued the courts erred by not considering comparable sale data. Claimants contended the original compensation was inadequate and relied on a prior judgment (FA No.1918/2020) that upheld a higher rate of Rs.3,000 per R. for irrigated lands with interest under Section 34. The bench examined whether the earlier decision could guide the present appeals despite different notifications and villages. It held that, in the interest of justice, the rate from the earlier case should be applied, though not as binding precedent, and modified the awards accordingly. Consequently, the appeals of both the acquiring body and the claimants were partly allowed, setting new compensation rates and ordering interest as per the State of Maharashtra v. Kailas Shiva Rangari precedent.
Issues considered
- Whether the reference court erred in enhancing compensation without considering comparable sale instances.
- Whether the compensation rate awarded in a prior case (FA No.1918/2020) can be applied to the present appeals involving different villages.
- Whether interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act is payable on the enhanced compensation.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act — s. 34, 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation enhancement
- interest under Section 34
- seasonally irrigated land
- precedent
- judicial review
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:31917
FA 2838/13
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
25 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2838 OF 2013
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. OBAD
VERSUS
MANOHAR KRISHNA CHAUDHARI (WARIK) AND ANR
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2837 OF 2013
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11841 OF 2022 IN FA/2887/2013
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, OSMANABAD
THR GMIDC
VERSUS
ILIAS HAJIMOHAMAD QURESHI AND ANR
…
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2885 OF 2013
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, OSMANABAD
THR GMIDC
VERSUS
HANMANT MANOHAR CHAUDHARI(WARIK) AND ORS
…
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2887 OF 2013
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11634 OF 2018 IN FA/2887/2013
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, OSMANABAD
THR GMIDC
VERSUS
ABDUL SHAKUR MAHEBOOBSAB QURESHI AND ANR
…
Advocate for Appellants : Mr. Dheple Shantaram R.
AGP for Respondent/State : Mrs. A.S. Mantri
Advocate for Respondents/claimants : Mr. V.S. Tanwade
…
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
Dated : July 27, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. Admit.
2. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for respective
FA 2838/13
2
parties.
3. By the present appeals, the acquiring body challenge the judgments
and awards passed by the learned reference court in different land
acquisition references.
4. The lands of the claimants involved in the present appeals were
acquired for the project Wadala Minor Irrigation Tank from different
villages. The notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act came
to be published on 11.3.1993. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO)
passed the award dated 18.11.1996 and granted compensation at the rate
of Rs. 17,000/- per H. The claimants being aggrieved by the inadequate
compensation, preferred land acquisition references wherein the reference
court enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per Acre for
seasonally irrigated lands i.e. for their acquired lands. Being aggrieved by
the same, the acquiring body has filed the present appeals.
5. The learned counsel for the acquiring body in respective matters
submit that SLAO has granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 17,000/-
per H. and same was enhanced by the reference court by granting
compensation at the rate of Rs. 50000/- per Acre for seasonally irrigated
lands. He submits that the SLAO has already considered the comparable
sale instances from the adjoining villages and rightly granted
compensation, but the reference court without considering the same has
enhanced the compensation which needs to be set aside by allowing the
appeals filed by the acquiring body.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the original claimants
submits that the SLAO has granted very meager compensation and
therefore, the references were filed. Claimants have placed reliance on E
FA 2838/13
3
statement, Exh. 19, 7/12 extracts, Exh. 20, 21, 23, 25, 35 and 39 and the
sale instances Exh. 22 and 24. He submits that the acquiring lands though
seasonally irrigated lands, the SLAO has granted very meager
compensation and the reference court without considering the sale
instances has granted very inadequate compensation though they are
entitled to receive more enhancement.
7. The learned counsel for the original claimants have tendered the
copy of the order dated 11.3.2026 passed by this Court in First Appeal No.
1918/2020 (The Ex. Engineer, Minor Irrigation Div. Osmanabad and Ors.
Vs. Mohan Maruti Dhole) in which judgment and award dated 18.8.2015
passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad in LAR No.
432/2011 is under challenge. They submits that the above matter arise
from the same project and the reference court enhanced the compensation
by granting rate of Rs. 3000/- per R. for irrigated lands. They submit that
the said order was challenged by the acquiring body before this Court by
filing First Appeal No. 1918/2020 and this court vide order dated
11.3.2026 maintained the rate granted by the reference court, but
modified the award to the extent of interest u/s. 34 of the Act in view of
the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of
Maharashtra Vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, reported in 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457.
Therefore, they submit that when this court confirmed the award passed in
LAR No. 432/2011, the appeals filed by the acquiring body needs to be
dismissed and compensation needs to be enhanced in view of the above
judgment in LAR No. 432/2011 passed by the reference court which is also
confirmed by this court in FA No. 1918/2020.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, I have
FA 2838/13
4
gone through the record and proceedings and also the judgment and
award of the reference court. There is no dispute about the fact that lands
in the present first appeals are acquired from village Takviki and other
villages. As regards the order on which claimants have placed reliance, the
lands are from village Bamani and the lands from the village Takviki and
Bamani are acquired for Wadala Tank by way of two different notifications.
However, the fact remains that the lands from different villages were
acquired for the same project. In view of the above, though different
notifications are issued, the lands were acquired from different villages for
the same project, I find that in the interest of justice, the rate granted in
LAR No. 432/2011 by the reference court can be considered for
enhancement in appeals filed by the original claimants though it cannot be
considered as binding precedent. Therefore, in my view the claimants from
the present appeals are also entitled to get the same rate as was granted
in LAR NO. 432/2011, which is confirmed by this Court in First Appeal No.
1918/2020. Hence, I pass the following order
ORDER
(i) The appeals filed by the acquiring body are partly allowed.
(II) The appeals filed by the original claimants are also partly allowed
and the claimants are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of
Rs.3000/- per R. for irrigated lands, Rs. 2250/- per R. for seasonally
irrigated lands, Rs. 1500/- per R. for dry land as classified by the reference
court, with all the statutory benefits available under the Land Acquisition
Act.
(III) As regards interest and other statutory benefits are concerned, the
claimants are entitled to receive the interest in view of the law laid down
FA 2838/13
5
by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs.
Kailas Shiva Rangari (supra).
(IV) The impugned judgments and awards are modified accordingly.
(V) The claimants to pay the deficit court fees, if any, for enhanced
compensation.
(VI) Pending Civil Applications, if any, are disposed of.
( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )
ssc/
Checking your session…