Bombay High Court
GOPAL TUKARAM PATEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
- Bench
- NEERAJ P DHOTE
Holding
The Court held that, on the basis of parity with earlier judgments, the appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs 6,516 per R for dry land and Rs 13,032 per R for irrigated land, with tree compensation at 60% of the valuation report.
Summary
The appellants, owners of lands acquired for the Borol Storage Tank project, filed first appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 seeking enhanced compensation. They relied on a prior judgment of this Court dated 25 March 2026, which had increased compensation for similarly situated claimants to Rs 6,516 per R for dry land and Rs 13,032 per R for irrigated land. The acquiring body argued that the appellants must demonstrate that their lands are comparable to those in the earlier case. The Court examined the location, purpose of acquisition, and the nature of the lands, finding them identical to the earlier claimants and therefore deserving of the same enhanced rates. It also held that compensation for trees should be fixed at 60% of the valuation report, incorporating earlier awards. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed, granting the enhanced rates, interest from the date of the final award, and ordering the acquiring body to deposit the amounts within six months.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellants are entitled to the enhanced compensation rates awarded in the earlier judgment on the basis of parity.
- Whether compensation for trees should be limited to 60% of the valuation report.
- Whether interest and statutory benefits are payable for the period of delay.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4, 54, 6
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation enhancement
- parity principle
- valuation report
- interest
- dry land
- irrigated land
- tree compensation
- Section 54
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:23907
939.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
939 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2882 OF 2019
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14968 OF 2015
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4155 OF 2024
IN FA/2882/2019
1) Vijaykumar Ramkishan Ugile
Age 47 years, Occ Agril,
2) Ramkishan Madhavrao Ugile
Died through LR's
2A) Narsabai w/o. Ramkishan Ugile
Age 71 years, Occ Agril,
2B) Rajkumar s/o. Ramkishan Ugile
Age 47 years, Occ Agril,
2C) Jijabai w/o. Tukaram Dandime
Age major, Occ Agril,
3) Narsabai w/o. Ramkishan Ugile
Age 71 years, Occ Agril,
All R/o.Borol, Taluka Deoni
District Latur. … Appellants
(Orig. Claimants)
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Collector, Latur.
2) The Executive Engineer,
Latur Medium Project, Latur. … Respondents
…..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2883 OF 2019
1) Gopal s/o. Tukaram Pate
Age 52 years, Occ Agril,
R/o.Borol, Taluka Deoni District Latur. …Appellant
(Orig. Claimant)
1
939.odt
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
Through The Collector, Latur.
2) The Executive Engineer,
Latur Medium Project, Latur. … Respondents
…..
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2884 OF 2019
1) Rajkumar s/o. Ramkishan Ugile
Age 47 years, Occ Agril,
2) Narsabai w/o. Ramkishan Ugile
Age 71 years, Occ Agril,
All R/o.Borol, Taluka Deoni
District Latur. … Appellants
(Orig. Claimants)
VERSUS
1) The State Of Maharashtra,
Through The Collector,
Latur.
2) The Executive Engineer,
Latur Medium Project, Latur. … Respondents
______________________________________________________________
Appearance :
Mr. H. B. Nandagavale a/w Mr. Ashwin V. Sakolkar h/f Mr. V. G.
Sakolkar, Advocate for the Appellant/s in all Appeals
Mr. N. D. Raje, AGP for Respondent No.1 – State in all Appeals
Mr. Anand Chaware, Advocate for Respondent No.2 in all Appeals
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
DATE : 17.06.2026
2
939.odt
COMMON JUDGMENT :
1. These are the First Appeals under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the L. A. Act’) by
the Original Claimants for enhanced compensation for acquisition
of their lands for the construction of ‘Borol Storage Tank’ at Village
Borol, Taluka – Deoni, District – Latur.
2. Since the Land Reference Application Nos.483/2007, 484/2007
and 485/2007 are decided by a common Judgment and Award dated
15.04.2008 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedpur
Camp at Udgir, these Appeals are decided by this Common
Judgment.
3. Heard the learned Advocate for the – Claimants, learned
Advocate for the Acquiring Body and the learned AGP for the
Respondents – State. With their assistance, perused the papers on
record.
4. The chart below shows the necessary and undisputed aspects
of the matters :-
First Appeal filed LAR No. Gat No. Area Compensation Ref. Court
by Claimants awarded by LAO Awarded
F.A.No.2882/2019 483/2007 127 4 H 94 R 1045/- per R 3500/- per R
128 (Jirayat) (Jirayat)
2090/- per R 5,250/- Per R
(Bagayat) (Bagayat)
3
939.odt
F.A.No.2884/2019 484/2007 127 4 H 95 R -do- -do-
128
F.A.No.2883/2019 485/2007 128 86 R -do- -do-
1 Acquisition purpose For construction Borol Storage Tank, Borol, Deoni (K)
Sindhikamath, Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur.
2 Notification u/s 4 Gazzette Dt. 03/02/2005 Village 17/02/2005
3 Notification u/s 6 Gazzette Dt. 14/07/2005 Village 11/07/2005
4 Possession 07/02/2004, 14/02/2004, 27/02/2004, 14/09/2004,
23/10/2004
5 Claim Claimed at Rs. 10,000/- per R
6 L.A.O. Award 22/05/2006
7 L.A.O. Awarded Rs.1045/- per R for Jirayat Land.
Rs.2090/- per R for Bagayat Land.
8 Reference Reference filed by Claimant
9 Reference Court Award Dt.15/04/2008
10 Reference Court Rs.3500/- per R for Jirayat Land.
Awarded Rs.7,000/- per R for irrigated land.
5. The Appellants are claiming enhancement on the basis of the
Judgment 25.03.2026 passed by this Court in group of First
Appeals and Cross-Objection therein, one of which is First Appeal
No.3028/2011 with Cross-Objection No.247/2025. According to the
learned Advocate for the Appellants, the Appellants stand on the
same footing as that of the Claimants in both Cross-objections,
4
939.odt
wherein, this Court enhanced compensation @ Rs.6,516/- per R for
the dry lands and the rate of Rs.13,032/- per R. for the irrigated
lands. He placed on record a copy of the said decision passed by
this Court.
6. The learned Advocate for the Acquiring Body submits that,
though this Court has enhanced the compensation to the similarly
placed Claimants, the Appellants will have to show the similarity
between their lands and the lands, which were the subject matter
of those Appeals and Cross-objections. He does not dispute the
aforesaid Judgment of this Court in the aforesaid Appeals and
Cross-objections.
7. It is submitted by the learned AGP that, appropriate orders
be passed.
8. Perusal of the said Judgment of this Court shows that, the
acquired lands of the Claimants therein were situated in the
Village – Borol, Deoni (Kh), Sindhikamath, Taluka – Deoni,
District – Latur and the said lands were acquired for the same
project, i.e. construction of ‘Borol Storage Tank’. Undisputedly, the
Appellants’ lands were situated in the very same Village, i.e. Borol
5
939.odt
and were acquired for the very same project. The only different is
that of the issuance of Sections 4 and 6 notifications under the L.
A. Act. In the present Appeals, Section 4 notification was published
in village on 17.02.2005 and Section 6 notification was published
on 11.07.2005; whereas in the disposed off Appeals, Section 4
notification was published in Gazzette on 19.08.2004 and Section 6
notification was published in Gazzette on 24.03.2005. This shows
that, the notification in the said disposed off Appeals, was prior to
the notifications, which were issued in the present matters. There
is no dispute in respect of the quality of the lands of the
Appellants. Some of the lands are held to be dry lands and some
are held to be irrigated lands. It is needless to state that, there
cannot be any sub-categorization for the dry lands and for the
irrigated lands. This being the position, and nothing to show that,
the Appellants are not entitled for the said rate, on the ground of
parity, the Appellants would be entitled for the rate of Rs.6,516/-
per R for the dry lands and Rs.13,032/- per R. for the irrigated
lands.
9. The Judgment passed by the learned Reference Court shows
that, the separate compensation for the trees came to be
determined. But, this Court in the aforesaid Judgment determined
6
939.odt
the compensation for the trees to the extent of 60% of the valuation
report, which includes the earlier amount of compensation awarded
by the L.A.O and the learned Reference Court. This being so, on
the ground of parity, the Appellants would be entitled for the same
rate of compensation for the trees.
10. In view of the above observations, no more discussion is
required. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
[a] First Appeal No.2882/2019, First Appeal No.2883/2019
and First Appeal No.2884/2019 are partly allowed.
[b] The Appellants would be entitled for the rate of
Rs.6,516/- per R. for the dry lands and the rate of
Rs.13,032/- per R. for irrigated lands.
[c] The Appellants would be entitled for compensation to
the extent of 60% of the valuation report, which
includes the earlier amount of compensation awarded
by the L.A.O and the learned Reference Court.
[d] The Appellants would be entitled for the interest from
the date of final Award.
[e] The Appellants shall not be entitled for the interest
and the statutory benefits for the delayed period, if
any, condoned by this Court.
7
939.odt
[f] The Award passed by learned Reference Court in LAR
Nos.483/2007, 484/2007 and 485/2007 stand modified
accordingly.
[g] The Appellants shall pay deficit court fee, if any,
within a period of four (04) weeks.
[h] The Acquiring Body to deposit the enhanced
compensation amount along with statutory benefits
and interest, within a period of six (06) months from
today in the office of this Court.
[i] Appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
[j] Pending civil applications, if any, are disposed of
accordingly.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]
Sameer/June-2026
8
Checking your session…