Bombay High Court
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KUKADI LEFT BANK CANAL SUB DIVISION, KOLWADIversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ORS
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
- Bench
- NEERAJ P DHOTE
Holding
Interest on the compensation must be calculated from the date of the final award, in accordance with State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari (2016).
Summary
The Executive Engineer (Acquiring Body) appealed a 2010 judgment and award that enhanced compensation for land acquired for the Kukadi Canal project, arguing that interest on the compensation was wrongly awarded from the date of possession. The Claimants (State of Maharashtra and others) contended that the enhanced rate of Rs.1,250 per R was proper and that interest should be calculated from the date of the final award, citing a prior decision of the High Court. The Court examined the basis of the enhanced valuation, noting that it was settled before a Lok‑Adalat and was consistent with earlier reference judgments. It also considered the precedent set in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari (2016) which held that interest should accrue from the date of the final award, not possession. Consequently, the Court partially allowed the appeals, modifying the interest calculation while leaving the enhanced compensation rate intact, and ordered the excess amount, if any, to be refunded to the Acquiring Body.
Issues considered
- Whether interest on compensation for land acquisition should be calculated from the date of possession or from the date of the final award.
- Whether the enhanced compensation rate of Rs.1,250 per R determined by the Reference Court and affirmed by the Lok‑Adalat is valid and requires alteration.
Subjects
- Land acquisition
- Compensation enhancement
- Interest calculation
- Lok‑Adalat
- Judicial review
- High Court
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:29317
928.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
928 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2937 OF 2018
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8435 OF 2025
The Executive Engineer,
Kukadi Left Bank Canal,
Sub-Division, Kolwadi,
Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. … Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents
….
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2930 OF 2018
The Executive Engineer,
Kukadi Left Bank Canal,
Sub-Division, Kolwadi,
Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. … Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents
….
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2931 OF 2018
The Executive Engineer,
Kukadi Left Bank Canal,
Sub-Division, Kolwadi,
Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. … Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents
….
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2933 OF 2018
The Executive Engineer,
Kukadi Left Bank Canal,
Sub-Division, Kolwadi,
Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. … Appellant
1
928.odt
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents
….
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2934 OF 2018
The Executive Engineer,
Kukadi Left Bank Canal,
Sub-Division, Kolwadi,
Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. … Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. … Respondents
….
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2936 OF 2018
The Executive Engineer,
Kukadi Left Bank Canal,
Sub-Division, Kolwadi,
Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. … Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents
….
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2938 OF 2018
The Executive Engineer,
Kukadi Left Bank Canal,
Sub-Division, Kolwadi,
Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. … Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. … Respondents
….
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2939 OF 2018
The Executive Engineer,
Kukadi Left Bank Canal,
Sub-Division, Kolwadi,
Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. … Appellant
2
928.odt
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents
….
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2940 OF 2018
The Executive Engineer,
Kukadi Left Bank Canal,
Sub-Division, Kolwadi,
Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. … Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents
….
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2941 OF 2018
The Executive Engineer,
Kukadi Left Bank Canal,
Sub-Division, Kolwadi,
Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. … Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents
….
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2942 OF 2018
The Executive Engineer,
Kukadi Left Bank Canal,
Sub-Division, Kolwadi,
Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. … Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents
….
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2943 OF 2018
The Executive Engineer,
Kukadi Left Bank Canal,
Sub-Division, Kolwadi,
Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. … Appellant
3
928.odt
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents
….
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2944 OF 2018
The Executive Engineer,
Kukadi Left Bank Canal,
Sub-Division, Kolwadi,
Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. … Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents
….
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2945 OF 2018
The Executive Engineer,
Kukadi Left Bank Canal,
Sub-Division, Kolwadi,
Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. … Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and Anr. … Respondents
….
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2946 OF 2018
The Executive Engineer,
Kukadi Left Bank Canal,
Sub-Division, Kolwadi,
Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. … Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents
….
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2947 OF 2018
The Executive Engineer,
Kukadi Left Bank Canal,
Sub-Division, Kolwadi,
Tq. Karjat, Dist. Ahmednagar. … Appellant
4
928.odt
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents
…..
Mr. Gulab B. Rajale, Advocate for Appellant – Acquiring Body
Mr. N. D. Raje, AGP for Respondent No.1 – State
Mr. D. R. Jayabhar, Advocate for the respective Respondents /
Claimants
…..
CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
DATE : 17.07.2026
FINAL ORDER :
1. These are the Appeals preferred by the Acquiring Body
against the common Judgment and Award dated 04.09.2010,
passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Shrigonda, in
group of eighteen (18) Land Acquisition References (LAR), which
were filed by the Respondents – Claimants for enhanced
compensation towards the acquisition of their lands for ‘Kukadi
Canal’, from Village – Wadgaon Tanpura, Taluka – Karjat, District
– Ahmednagar.
2. Heard finally by consent of both the sides.
3. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Acquiring
Body that, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short ‘the
SLAO’) awarded the compensation ranging from Rs.240/- to
Rs.300/- per R. for dry land, and the learned Reference Court
enhanced the rate to Rs.1,250/- per R. for dry land. He fairly
submits that, the enhancement is little over four (04) times of the
compensation awarded by the SLAO. He submits that, the learned
5
928.odt
Reference Court has granted interest from the date of taking
possession of the land, which is contrary to the decision of this
Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari;
2016 (4) ALL MR 513 and the Award be accordingly modified and
the Appeal be disposed off.
4. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Claimant/s
that, several matters arising out of the same acquisition
proceedings were disposed off before the Lok-Adalat by way of
amicable settlement. He submits that, the learned Reference Court
has properly enhanced the compensation and no interference was
called for. However, he does not dispute that the interest shall be
calculated from the date of the final Award, as per the above-
referred decision.
5. The Judgment passed by the learned Reference Court shows
that, the said rate is determined on the basis of the Award dated
08.08.2010 in LAR No.603/2003 and LAR No.607/2003 before the
National Lok-Adalat. The observations from the Judgment are
reproduced below :
“9) The contentions of the Reference Petitions are only
considered with regard to value of the land. With regards to the
value of the land, Reference Petitioner in his petition submitted
that there was compromise in L.R.A.No.603/2003 to 607/2003
and 2/2004 to 6/2004. The compromise was before the
'Lokadalat' held on 8/08/2010. In 'Lokadalat' market value is
determined at the rate of Rs.1250/- per R. It is swore by witness
Bapu Dinkar Shinde that the land of which value is determined
in 'Loknyayalaya' on 8/08/2010 and land which is subject
matter of present petition are out of one and the same village
and out of one and same project i.e. purpose of the acquisition is
one and the same project. Therefore, present Reference
Petitioners have admitted and accepted the value determined in
L.R.A.No.603/2003 to 607/2003 in 'Loknyayalaya’ held on
6
928.odt
8/08/2010 at the rate of Rs.1250/- per R. Petitioners accepted
the same valuation though at the time of notification under
section 4 the value exceeds Rs.1400/- per R. It is further
contended by the Petitioner, witness, the crop pattern, fertility of
the land of which valuation is determined in 'Loknyayalaya' is
one and the same, as compared to land which is subject matter
of the present Reference Petition. As Petitioner accepted the value
determined in L.R.A.No.424/2003, copy of Judgment, which is
at Exh.12, in' Loknyayalaya' the value of the land is determined,
considering the said Judgment i.e. Exh.12 with rise in price.
10) Considering all these facts and evidence on record, I am of
the view that the value determined by Land Acquisition Officer is
not as per the market value as on the day of notification and it
needs to enhance. Therefore, considering the evidence, I hold that
value of the land is at the rate of Rs.1250/- per R instead of
value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer.”
6. From the above observations, it is clear that, on the basis of
the connected land references arising out of the same acquisition
proceedings and the same Award, the rate was settled before the
Lok-Adalat. The references, which are the subject matter of these
Appeal, arise out of the same acquisition proceedings and the same
Award. Hence, no fault can be found with the said enhanced rate
determined by the learned Reference Court. The operative order of
the impugned Judgment goes to show that, the interest is granted
from the date of possession, which is contrary to the decision of this
Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari;
2016 (4) ALL MR 513 and the Award needs to be modified
accordingly. Hence, the following order is passed :
ORDER
[a] The Appeals are partly allowed to the extent of the
interest only.
[b] The interest shall be calculated from the date of final
Award in light of the decision of this Court in State
7
928.odt
of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari; 2016
(4) ALL MR 513.
[c] The amount of enhanced compensation be accordingly
calculated, and the excess amount, if any, deposited
by the Acquiring Body be refunded to the Acquiring
Body.
[d] The Claimant/s shall be entitled to withdraw the
amount after the calculation is made as above.
[e] Pending Civil Application/s, if any, stand disposed off
accordingly.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]
Sameer/July-2026
8
Checking your session…