Bombay High Court
SUDHAKAR KESHAV NIMDEOversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The Court held that irrigated/bagayat land is to be compensated at Rs 44,000 per hectare and that no separate compensation for the well is permissible.
Summary
The appellant, owner of 6.2 hectares of agricultural land acquired for an irrigation tank, was initially compensated at Rs 7,500‑8,500 per hectare. He sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the Reference Court enhanced the market value to Rs 12,000 per hectare. Dissatisfied, he appealed, arguing that the land is irrigated/bagayat and therefore deserves a higher valuation. The Court noted a prior decision (First Appeal No. 303 of 2001) that set the value of dry land at Rs 22,000 per hectare and, based on the Reference Court’s finding of high fertility and irrigation, held that irrigated land should be valued at Rs 44,000 per hectare. The Court also ruled that separate compensation for the well is not permissible, directing that the well compensation already awarded be deducted from the enhanced amount, and ordered interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Act.
Issues considered
- Whether the market value of irrigated/bagayat land should be higher than that of dry land for compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
- Whether the appellant is entitled to separate compensation for the well on the acquired land.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 11, 18, 28, 34, 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- market value
- irrigated land
- bagayat land
- Section 18 reference
- well compensation
- interest
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:41313
1-FA-3134-2008.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
1 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3134 OF 2008
Sudhakar Keshav Nimdeo
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
……
Mr. Shashikant S. Londhe, Advocate for the Appellant
Mr. S.S. Dande, AGP for Respondents No.1 and 3
……
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 04 SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. This appeal is preferred by the original claimant challenging the
Judgment and Award dated 08.03.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Hingoli in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.137 of 1991 and
136 of 1991, whereby the learned Reference Court, by a common Judgment
and Award, enhanced the market value of the acquired land to Rs.12,000/-
per Hectare.
3. The appellant was the owner of agricultural land bearing Gut
No.261, admeasuring 6 Hectares 20 R, situated at village Bhingi, Taluka
Hingoli, District Parbhani. The said land was acquired for construction of the
Hadgaon Minor Irrigation Tank. The notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the Official Gazette on 15.04.1886.
The award under Section 11 of the Act was passed on 03.06.1989. The
1-FA-3134-2008.odt
2
Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation for the acquired
land at rates ranging from Rs.7,500/- to Rs.8,500/- per Hectare. The
claimant, being dissatisfied with the compensation offered, accepted the
same under protest and sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The
learned Reference Court enhanced the market value to Rs.12,000/- per
Hectare. Being dissatisfied with the enhancement so granted, the claimant
has preferred the present appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that the
controversy involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the
judgment and order dated 30.10.2018 passed by the Coordinate Bench of
this Court in First Appeal No.303 of 2001. He submits that the said appeal
was preferred by the claimant in Land Acquisition Reference No.136 of 1991
against the very same Judgment and Award, whereas the present appeal was
left out while considered the said appeal.
5. Learned counsel further submits that the Coordinate Bench, after
considering the material on record, partly allowed First Appeal No.303 of
2001 and determined the market value of the acquired dry land at
Rs.22,000/- per Hectare. He submits that the land involved in the present
appeal is irrigated/bagayat land and, therefore, the claimant is entitled to
appropriate enhancement in accordance with the nature of the acquired
land.
1-FA-3134-2008.odt
3
6. Learned AGP appearing for the acquiring body submits that the
judgment of the Coordinate Bench in First Appeal No.303 of 2001 concerns
the same acquisition and the same Judgment and Award. He, therefore,
submits that the said judgment may be taken into consideration while
deciding the present appeal.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the respective parties and have gone through the material placed on record.
8. It is not in dispute that the acquisition in the present appeal is the
same acquisition which was the subject matter of First Appeal No.303 of
2001. It is also not in dispute that the said appeal arose out of the same
Judgment and Award dated 08.03.2000 passed by the learned Reference
Court. The Coordinate Bench, while considering First Appeal No.303 of
2001, determined the market value of the acquired dry land at Rs.22,000/-
per Hectare. The said determination is, therefore, relevant for considering
the claim made in the present appeal.
9. Insofar as the nature of the land involved in the present appeal is
concerned, the material on record indicates that there was a well in the
acquired land. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had separately awarded
compensation towards the well. The learned Reference Court has also
recorded a finding regarding the high fertility of the acquired land and its
bagayat/irrigated nature.
1-FA-3134-2008.odt
4
10. Thus, the acquired land in the present appeal cannot be treated on
the same footing as dry land. Having regard to the finding recorded by the
learned Reference Court regarding the nature and fertility of the land, the
claimant would be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.44,000/- per
Hectare for the acquired irrigated/bagayat land.
11. Thus, considering the market value of the dry land determined by
the Coordinate Bench at Rs.22,000/- per Hectare and having regard to the
finding recorded by the learned Reference Court that the acquired land is
irrigated/bagayat land, the claimant is entitled to compensation at the rate
of Rs.44,000/- per Hectare for the acquired irrigated/bagayat land.
However, as this Court has treated the acquired land as irrigated land, the
appellant-claimant is not entitled to separate compensation towards the
well. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer
towards the well, along with the interest accrued thereon, shall be deducted
from the enhanced compensation.
12. In view of the above discussion, the Judgment and Award passed by
the learned Reference Court, therefore, needs to be modified to that extent.
Hence, the following order:
ORDER
(i) The First Appeal is partly allowed.
1-FA-3134-2008.odt
5
(ii) The common impugned Judgment and Award dated 08.03.2000
passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hingoli in Land
Acquisition Reference Nos.137 of 1991 and 136 of 1991 is modified to the
aforesaid extent.
(iii) The appellant-claimant is held entitled to receive compensation for
the acquired irrigated/bagayat land at the rate of Rs.44,000/- per Hectare.
(iv) Since the acquired land has been treated as irrigated land, the
appellant-claimant shall not be entitled to separate compensation towards
the well. The amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer
towards the well, along with the interest accrued thereon, shall accordingly
be deducted from the enhanced compensation.
(v) The appellant-claimant shall be entitled to all statutory benefits
under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in accordance with law.
(vi) The appellant-claimant shall be entitled to interest under Sections
28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, strictly in accordance with the
Full Bench decision of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailas Shiva
Rangari, 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457.
(vii) The remaining part of the Judgment and Award passed by the
learned Reference Court shall remain unaltered.
(viii) The modified award be drawn accordingly.
(ix) The appellant-claimant shall pay the deficit Court fees, if any, on the
enhanced compensation.
(x) Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
S P Rane
Checking your session…