Bombay High Court
TULSHIDAS PRABHAKARRAO ROHINKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
- Bench
- SHAILESH P BRAHME
Holding
The court held that the appellant is entitled to escalation for four years, fixing compensation at Rs 3660 per R, but not to interest for the delayed period, only interest under Sections 28 and 34 from the date of award.
Summary
The appellant's land in Rohina village was acquired under a Section 4 notification on 27‑04‑2000 for the Nimna Dudhana Project, with an award dated 10‑04‑2003 fixing compensation at Rs 800 per R. The appellant sought the benefit of escalation on the ground of parity, arguing that similar lands had been granted a 10% per annum escalation for four years by a common order dated 15‑12‑2025. The respondents contested the claim, asserting no entitlement to escalation. The High Court, relying on its earlier consistent view granting escalation in comparable cases, held that the appellant was entitled to escalation for four years, fixing the compensation at Rs 3660 per R, but denied interest for the delayed period, allowing only interest under Sections 28 and 34 from the award date as per State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari. The appeal was partially allowed, with the rest of the impugned judgment and award remaining unchanged.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of escalation on compensation for acquired land on the ground of parity
- Whether interest and statutory benefits are payable for the delayed period
- How the escalated compensation amount should be calculated
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 11, 28, 34, 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- escalation
- parity
- interest
- statutory benefits
- Section 4
- Section 11
- Section 28
- Section 34
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:796
1 923-FA. 2855-2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2855 OF 2021
TULSHIDAS PRABHAKARRAO ROHINKAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Koralkar Arun H.
AGP for Respondent/s-State : Mr. S. V. Hange.
Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. Mene Santosh B.
...
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 08.01.2026
FINAL ORDER :-
1. Heard both sides finally at the admission stage.
2. Appellant is challenging judgment and award dated 04.07.2014
passed in LAR.No.1084 of 2010 awarding compensation @ of Rs.2500/- per
R., but refusing to grant benefit of escalation. Appellant is claiming the
enhancement by awarding him the benefit of escalation on the ground of
parity.
3. Respondents have contested claim of the appellant. It is submitted
that appellant failed to make out any case of parity. He is not entitled to
escalation.
4. Following are the material particulars in the present appeal :
1/3
2 923-FA. 2855-2021.odt
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
923 2855/2021 1084/2010 179 01 H 27.04.2000 10.04.2003 Rs.800/- Rs.2500/- 1 H 18 R
18 R per R. for per R. for
dry land dry land
5. Appellant’s land from village Rohina, Taluka Partur was acquired by
notification under Section 4 issued on 27.04.2000. By award dated
10.04.2003 rate of Rs.800/- per R. was fixed considering it to be a dry land.
The acquisition is for Nimna Dudhana Project. The case is squarely covered
by consistent view taken by this Court in granting benefit of escalation @
10% per annum. From self-same village and the project, lands were acquired
vide notification dated 27.04.2000. By common order dated 15.12.2025, the
benefit of escalation was granted for four (4) years. Present case is squarely
covered by earlier view taken by this Court.
6. Respondents have not led any evidence before the Reference Court.
They are not disputing the classification. The enhancement granted by the
Reference Court has not been disputed by either of the parties. Appellant is
entitled to escalation for four (4) years and the rate needs to be fixed at
Rs.3660/- per R. I, therefore, pass following order :
ORDER
(i) First appeal is allowed partly.
2/3
3 923-FA. 2855-2021.odt
(ii) The appellant shall be entitled to receive compensation @ of
Rs.3660/- per R.
(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].
(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/-
3/3
Checking your session…