Bombay High Court

DATTA BANSI PRADHANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR COLLECTOR, JALNA AND ORS

Disposal: PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Bench: SHAILESH P BRAHME

Holding

The Court held that the rate of Rs.5960 per R, derived by applying a 10% per annum escalation to the uncontested Rs.3700 per R rate of LAR No.608/2011, is the appropriate compensation for the dry land.

Summary

The appellants challenged a 2017 common judgment fixing compensation for dry land acquired in Devgaon Khavne, seeking a higher rate by relying on earlier awards: Rs.7586 per R from LAR No.457/2013, Rs.6000 per R from a National Lok Adalat settlement (First Appeal No.43/2023), and Rs.3700 per R from LAR No.608/2011. The State opposed the first two rates, arguing the 2013 rate was under appeal and the Lok Adalat rate stemmed from a settlement lacking privity, and contended the 2011 case involved different land. The Court examined the comparability of the lands and applied a 10% per annum escalation to the uncontested 2011 rate, arriving at approximately Rs.5960 per R. It allowed the appeals in part, fixing the compensation at Rs.5960 per R, denied interest for the delayed period but granted interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act from the award date, and ordered the record to be sent back for award adjustment.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate compensation rate for the dry land acquired in the present appeals?
Can rates fixed in earlier cases (LAR No.457/2013, National Lok Adalat settlement, LAR No.608/2011) be applied to the present case?
Are the appellants entitled to interest and statutory benefits for the period of delay?

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act — s. 28, 34

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation rate
escalation
Lok Adalat
estoppel
interest
statutory benefits
dry land
appellate court

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:8771
1 FA.3292-25 & ors.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

FIRST APPEAL NO. 3292 OF 2025
AANNA BANSI PRADHAN
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR COLLECTOR, JALNA AND ORS

WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3290 OF 2025
SHANTABAI W/O APPASAHEB MORE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR COLLECTOR, JALNA AND ORS

WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3288 OF 2025
APPARAV @ APPASAHEB S/O VITTHALRAV MORE (DIED) THR LRA
BANDU AND ORS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR COLLECTOR, JALNA AND ORS

WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3291 OF 2025
AASARAM S/O NARAYAN MORE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR COLLECTOR, JALNA AND ORS

WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3289 OF 2025
DATTA BANSI PRADHAN
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR COLLECTOR, JALNA AND ORS
…
Advocate for Appellants : Mr. D. M. Kakade.
AGP for Respondent/s-State : Mr. S. V. Hange.
...

CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

RESERVED ON : 24.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 27.02.2026
FINAL ORDER :-

1. Heard both sides finally at the admission stage with consent of the

parties.

1/6
2 FA.3292-25 & ors.odt

2. A common judgment and order dated 05.04.2017 passed by the

Reference Court in different references is assailed in these appeals by the

claimants. They are claiming enhancement by relying upon rate fixed in

First Appeal No.43 of 2023 or LAR. No.457 of 2013 or LAR. No.608 of 2011.

3. Learned counsel Mr. Kakade for the appellants submits that the

Reference Court in LAR. No.457 of 2013 has fixed the rate of Rs.7586/- per

R. which would be adopted in the present appeals also. He would further

submit that rate fixed in National Lok Adalat in First Appeal No.43 of 2023

emanating from LAR. No.214 of 2011 to the tune of Rs.4800/- be accepted.

By adding the benefit of escalation rate of Rs.6,000/- per R. is solicited. In

the alternative it is submitted that as per the rate of Rs.3700/- per R. arrived

at in LAR. No.608 of 2011, the rate of Rs.6207/- per R. be fixed, by adding

the benefit of escalation. The relevant judgments and the orders including

that of National Lok Adalat are placed on record by way of separate

compilation.

4. Per contra, learned AGP would vehemently oppose the claim of

enhancement. It is submitted that the rate of Rs.7586/- fixed in LAR. No.457

of 2013 is not final as first appeal against it is still pending. It is submitted

that rate arrived at in Lok Adalat cannot be basis for fixing the rate as it was

out of settlement and contract between the parties. Lastly, it is submitted

that there is no similarity in the lands acquired in LAR. No.608 of 2011 and

lands acquired in the present appeals. Reliance is placed on the common

order dated 23.12.2025 passed by this Court in First Appeal No.2506 of
2/6
3 FA.3292-25 & ors.odt

2023 and connected matters.

5. In these group of appeals, this Court is called upon to determine as

to which would be the most compatible rate, akin to the probable market

value. Three rates are pressed into service by the appellants which are

disputed by the respondent/acquiring body. All lands from village Devgaon

Khavne stood acquired vide notification dated 26.01.2010. Undisputedly,

the lands in question are dry lands. Award was passed on 20.07.2011

offering rate of Rs.1500/- per R. The Reference Court enhanced it to

Rs.2600/- per R. In these backdrop the submissions of the parties are

required to be assessed.

5. Following are the material particulars in the present first appeals :

6. The rate of Rs.7586/- per R. was fixed in LAR. No.457 of 2013 and

land in that case was acquired from village Ambhora Jahagir. The judgment

of LAR is under challenge in the first appeal which is subjudiced. Hence, I

3/6
4 FA.3292-25 & ors.odt

am not inclined to accept the rate.

7. Next rate which is pressed into service is of Rs.6,000/- per R. based

upon settlement arrived at in National Lok Adalat vide order dated

13.09.2025 in First Appeal No.43 of 2023. It was land from self-same

village. In this regard it is appropriate to appreciate the ratio of the

Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Pramod Gupta (Dead) by L.Rs. and

others ; (2005) 12 Supreme Court Cases 1. This Court had occasion to rely

upon the said judgment while deciding First appeal 2506 of 2023 and

connected matters on 23.12.2025. The principles of estoppel cannot be

made applicable for fixing the rate, is rightly submitted by learned AGP.

Besides that the rate fixed in Lok Adalat would be outcome of settlement

and the contract between the parties. There can be no privity of contract

between the parties of the present appeals. I, therefore, discard rate of

Rs.6,000/- per R.

8. In case of LAR. No.608 of 2011 decided by common judgment and

award dated 13.01.2017 land from village Mahora was acquired. The

notification in that case was issued on 26.08.2004. The rate was fixed at

Rs.3,700/- per R. No appeal is reported to have been filed against the

judgment of the Reference Court. The map produced on record shows that

village Mahora and village Devgaon Khavne share a common boundary.

9. Appellants are entitled to receive benefit of escalation by cumulative

effect. I find that rate of Rs.3700/- per R. can be said to be compatible one.

In that case, the notification was issued on 26.08.2004. If the escalation @
4/6
5 FA.3292-25 & ors.odt

Rs.10% per annum is added for five (5) years then rate comes to Rs.5958.88

per R. It is pertinent to note that in LAR. No.608 of 2011 the rate of

Rs.3700/- per R. was fixed for 1H. 72R. It is comparatively larger area than

the area of the lands acquired in the present appeals. But the rate is

acceptable to the appellants. For sake of convenience, I find that rate of

Rs.5960/- would be the appropriate figure.

10. For the reasons stated above, I pass following order :

ORDER

(i) First appeals are allowed partly.

(ii) The appellants shall be entitled to receive rate of Rs.5960/- per

R. for dry land.

(iii) The appellants shall not be entitled to interest and statutory

benefits for the delayed period.

(iv) The appellants shall be entitled to interest under Section 28 and

34 of the Land Acquisition Act from the date of award as per law

laid down in the judgment of Full Bench in case of State of

Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari [2016 AIR (Bom.) 141].

(v) Save and except above modification. Impugned judgment and

award passed by Reference Court shall stand unaltered.

(vi) The appellants shall pay deficit court fees, if any.

5/6
6 FA.3292-25 & ors.odt

(vii) Record and proceeding be sent back to the concerned Court, if

any.

(viii) Award be drawn accordingly.

(SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)

...

vmk/-

6/6

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…