Bombay High Court
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, OSMANABAD THR GMIDC AURANGABADversusNAGNATH BABU DHUMAL THR LRS RUKMINIBAI RAMLING BIDWE AND ANR
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The Court held that, in the interest of justice, the compensation rates awarded in LAR No. 432/2011 (Rs 3000 per R for irrigated land and Rs 1500 per R for dry land) are applicable to the present appeals, thereby partially allowing both the acquiring body’s and the claimants’ appeals and modifying the awards accordingly.
Summary
The Court heard multiple first appeals challenging the compensation awards in land acquisition proceedings for the Wadala Tank project. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had initially awarded Rs 150‑225 per R, which the reference court enhanced to Rs 940 per R. The acquiring body argued that the reference court’s enhancement was unwarranted, while the original claimants contended that the compensation remained inadequate. Relying on a prior judgment (LAR No. 432/2011) that awarded Rs 3000 per R for irrigated land and Rs 1500 per R for dry land, the Court held that the same rates should apply to the present appeals. It partially allowed the appeals of both the acquiring body and the claimants, modified the awards accordingly, and ordered interest and statutory benefits under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. The impugned judgments were modified and pending civil applications were disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the compensation rates awarded by the reference court can be aligned with rates granted in another land acquisition reference for the same project.
- Whether the acquiring body's appeal challenging the reference court's enhanced compensation should be allowed.
- Whether the original claimants are entitled to the higher compensation rates of Rs 3000 per R for irrigated land and Rs 1500 per R for dry land with statutory benefits.
- Application of interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act as per State of Maharashtra v. Kailas Shiva Rangari.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 34, 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- reference court
- interest under Section 34
- precedent
- Wadala Tank project
- statutory benefits
- appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:31909
FA 770/13 & Ors
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
22 FIRST APPEAL NO. 770 OF 2013
KASHINATH VISHWANATH BAMANKAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2926 OF 2017
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, OSMANABAD
THR GMIDC AURANGABAD
VERSUS
SOPAN RAMANNA MANU AND ANR
…
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2928 OF 2017
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, OSMANABAD
THR GMIDC AURANGABAD
VERSUS
MEENAKSHI APPARAO DHUMAL AND ANR
…
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2927 OF 2017
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, OSMANABAD
THR GMIDC AURANGABAD
VERSUS
NAGNATH BABU DHUMAL THR LRS RUKMINIBAI RAMLING BIDWE AND
ANR
…
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 748 OF 2014
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7080 OF 2018
IN FA/748/2014
GODAVARI MARATHWADA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, OSMANABAD
VERSUS
KASHINATH VISHWANATH BAMANKAR AND ANOTHER
…
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2023 OF 2015
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, OSMANABAD
VERSUS
BABASAHEB GUNDAPPA PATIL AND ANOTHER
FA 770/13 & Ors
2
…
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1147 OF 2017
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 150 OF 2025
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LOWER TERNA CANAL DIVISION-2,
OSMANABAD AND ORS.
VERSUS
ABHAY KALYANRAO DESHPANDE AND ORS.
…
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2159 OF 2017
THE MAHARASHTRA KRUSHNA VALLY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
VERSUS
MOHAMMAD RASHID SHAIKH
…
Advocates for Appellants in respective matters : Mr. Anand V. Patil-Indrale,
Mr. P.S. Shinde, Mr. A.N. Gaddime, Mr. A.M. Gaikwad, Mr. S.C. Arora
AGP for Respondent/State in all matters : Mr. S.S. Dande
Advocate for Respondents/claimants in respective matters : Mr. V.V. Ingale,
Mr. Sanjay Wakure, Mr. R.P. Adgaonkar, Mr. L.C. Patil
Advocate for Respondent No. 2. in FA 770/13 : Ms. Geeta Deshpande
…
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
Dated : July 27, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. First Appeal Nos. 2023/2015, 1147/2017 and 2159/2017 are not on
board. Taken on board.
2. Admit.
3. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel Mr. Anand V. Patil-
Indrale, Mr. P.S. Shinde, Mr. A.N. Gaddime, Mr. A.M. Gaikwad, Mr. S.C.
Arora, Mrs. Geeta Deshpande appearing for appellants/acquiring body in
respective matters, Mr. S.S. Dande, learned AGP for State, Mr. V.V. Ingale,
Mr. Sanjay Wakure, Mr. R.P. Adgaonkar and Mr. L.C. Patil, for original
claimants.
4. By the present appeals, the acquiring body as well as the original
FA 770/13 & Ors
3
claimants challenge the judgments and awards passed by the learned
reference court in different land acquisition references.
5. The lands of the claimants involved in the present appeals were
acquired for the project Wadala Tank from different villages. The
notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be
published on 25.2.1993. Possession was taken over on 30.12.1992. The
Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) passed the award dated 8.11.1996
and granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 9000/- per Acre and Rs.
6600/- per Acre. The claimants being aggrieved by the inadequate
compensation, preferred land acquisition references wherein the reference
court enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs. 37,600/- per Acre i.e.
940/- per R. for their acquired lands. Being aggrieved by the same, the
acquiring body as well as the original claimants filed the present appeals.
6. The learned counsel for the acquiring body in respective matters
submit that SLAO has granted compensation at the rate of RS. 150/- per
R. and Rs. 225/- per R. and same was enhanced by the reference court by
granting Rs.940/- per R. 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.
7. In support of the above contentions, Mrs. Geeta Deshpande, learned
counsel for the acquiring body placed reliance on the judgment and order
dated 21.10.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal of
2024 arising out of SLP © No. 7963/2023 (Horrmal (Deceased) through his
L.Rs. And others Vs. State of Haryana and Others).
FA 770/13 & Ors
4
8. 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. They relied on the sale deed Exhs. 29
and 30 and also on 7/12 extracts Exhs. 19, 24 and 28. They submit that
the acquiring lands though dry lands, the SLAO has granted very meager
compensation, the reference court without considering the sale instances
has granted very inadequate compensation though they are entitled to
receive more enhancement.
9. 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
FA 770/13 & Ors
5
confirmed by this court in FA No. 1918/2020.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, I have
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 Patoda 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 Patoda 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. 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 statutory benefits under the Act is
FA 770/13 & Ors
6
concerned, the claimants are entitled to receive the interest 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 (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…