Bombay High Court

BAHUBALI DIGAMBAR DURUGKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED

Holding

The appeal is partly allowed; the appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation at Rs 15 per sq ft and the related statutory benefits and interest as per the earlier judgment.

Summary

The appellants, Bahubali Digambar Durugkar and Chandrakant Subrao Patil, appealed against the State of Maharashtra challenging the compensation awarded for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. They argued that a prior judgment (FA No. 95/2004) had already fixed the compensation rate at Rs 15 per square foot for the same project and notification. The Court examined the submissions and accepted that the present controversy was identical to the earlier case. Accordingly, the Court partially allowed the appeal, granting the appellants enhanced compensation at Rs 15 per sq ft along with all statutory benefits and interest under Section 34 of the Act, subject to the principles laid down in State of Maharashtra v. Kailas Shiva Rangari. The original award was otherwise confirmed, and the appeal was disposed of in accordance with the earlier judgment.

Issues considered

Whether the present appeal is covered by the earlier judgment in FA No. 95/2004.
Whether the appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation at Rs 15 per square foot for the acquired land.
Whether interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is payable to the appellants.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 34

Subjects

Land acquisition
Compensation
Enhanced compensation
Section 34
Interest
Award modification
Precedent

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:43367

FA 3052/2008 & Anr.
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

18 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3052 OF 2008

BAHUBALI DIGAMBAR DURUGKAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
…
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3055 OF 2008

CHANDRAKANT SUBRAO PATIL
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Advocate for Appellants: Mr. J.R. Patil
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. A.M. Phule
...

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
Dated : September 22, 2026

PER COURT :-

1. FA No. 3055/2008 is not on board. Taken on board.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

3. The present appeals arises out of the judgment and award dated

23.7.2007 passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Osmanabad in LAR No. 212/1994 and 211/1994.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants has tendered across the Bar a

copy of the judgment and order dated 10.01.2019 passed by the Coordinate

Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.95/2004 (Jayant Kishanrao Patil Vs.

The State of Maharashtra) and other connected matters. Both the counsel

for the respective parties submit that this Court has already decided the

above matter arising out of the same notification, same project and

determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.15/- per sq. ft. in FA No.

95/2004 (supra). It is, therefore, contended that the controversy involved
FA 3052/2008 & Anr.
2

in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment and order in FA

No. 95/2004 (supra), and consequently, the present appeal deserves to be

disposed of in terms thereof.

5. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel

for the respective parties, and in view of the admitted position that the

controversy involved in the present appeal is identical to the one decided by

the Coordinate Bench in FA No. 95/2004 (supra), I see no reason to take a

different view. The present appeal, therefore, deserves to be disposed of in

terms of the said judgment and order. Hence, the following order:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is partly allowed.

(ii) The claimants/appellants are entitled to receive enhanced

compensation at the rate of Rs.15/- per sq. ft. for their acquired lands.

(iii) The claimants shall be entitled to all consequential statutory benefits

on the enhanced compensation in accordance with the provisions of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

(iv) The claimant shall be entitled to interest under Section 34 of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, strictly in accordance with the principles laid

down by the Full Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Kailas Shiva

Rangari, 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457.

(v) Save and except the aforesaid modification, the judgments and

award passed by the learned Reference Court stand confirmed.

(vi) The claimant shall not be entitled to the interest for the period of

delay, if any, condoned by this Court caused in filing the present appeal.

(vii) The claimant shall pay the deficit Court-fees, if any.
FA 3052/2008 & Anr.
3

(viii) The modified award be drawn accordingly.

(ix) Pending Civil Application, if any, stands disposed of.

( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )

ssc/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…