Bombay High Court
SAMADHAN TUKARAM JADHAV DIED THR LRS LILABAI SAMADHAN JADHAV AND ANRversusTHE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER J.P. 2 AURANGABAD AND ANR
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- SHAILESH P BRAHME
Holding
The appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs 3,960 per R for dry land and Rs 5,940 per R for seasonally irrigated land.
Summary
A group of agricultural landowners whose lands were acquired for the Jayakwadi Project’s distributory main canal challenged the compensation awarded by the reference court, which fixed Rs 2,500 per R. The appellants argued that a comparable sale deed (Exhibit 35) demonstrated a market rate of Rs 3,937‑3,960 per R and that, under Supreme Court precedent, the highest genuine rate should be applied with yearly escalation. The respondents contended that the reference court’s rate was proper and that estoppel barred any enhancement. The High Court examined the sale exemplar, the principle of parity, and relevant Supreme Court judgments, concluding that the appellants were entitled to the higher rates of Rs 3,960 per R for dry land and Rs 5,940 per R for seasonally irrigated land, while limiting interest to that prescribed under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appeal was allowed in part.
Issues considered
- Whether the reference court erred in fixing the compensation rate at Rs 2,500 per R.
- Whether a sale exemplar can be used to determine a higher compensation rate for the acquired lands.
- Whether the principle of estoppel prevents the acquiring body from enhancing compensation.
- Whether escalation and cumulative effect principles apply to calculate compensation.
- Whether interest and statutory benefits are payable under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 11, 28, 34, 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation enhancement
- sale exemplar
- estoppel
- escalation
- interest
- Land Acquisition Act 1894
- Jayakwadi Project
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:16323
1 FA / 3466 / 2025 + Group
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL No. 3466 OF 2025
Samadhan S/o Tukaram Jadhav Died
Through the Legal Representatives...
1] Lilabai Samadhan Jadhav,
Age : 60 years, Occu. Agril.,
2] Raju Samadhan Jadhav,
Age : 47 years, Occu. Agril.,
Both R/o. Dhaba, Tal. Soygaon,
District : Aurangabad .. Appellants
(Orig. Claimants)
Versus
1] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Jayakwadi Project – 2,
Aurangabad
2] The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division No. 01,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad .. Respondents
(Orig. Respondents)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 3467 OF 2025
1] Shashikalabai W/o Waman Helwade,
Age : 50 years, Occu. Agril.,
2] Suresh S/o Waman Helwade,
Age : 27 years, Occu. Agril.,
Both R/o. Dhaba, Tal. Soygaon,
District : Aurangabad .. Appellants
(Orig. Claimants)
Versus
1] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Jayakwadi Project – 2,
Aurangabad
2] The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division No. 01,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad .. Respondents
2 FA / 3466 / 2025 + Group
(Orig. Respondents)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 3468 OF 2025
Pralhad S/o Digambar Jadhav,
Age : 65 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o. Dhaba, Tal. Soygaon,
District : Auranbabad .. Appellant
(Orig. Claimant)
Versus
1] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Jayakwadi Project – 2,
Aurangabad
2] The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division No. 01,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad .. Respondents
(Orig. Respondents)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 3469 OF 2025
Ashok S/o Tulshiram Gawande,
Age : 65 years, Occu. Agril,
R/o. Nandgaon, Tal. Soygaon,
District : Aurangabad .. Appellant
(Orig. Claimant)
Versus
1] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Jayakwadi Project – 2,
Aurangabad
2] The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division No. 01,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad .. Respondents
(Orig. Respondents)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 3471 OF 2025
Ramdas S/o Prabhat Kakane,
Age : 57 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o Dhaba, Tq. Soygaon,
District : Aurangabad .. Appellant
(Orig. Claimant)
Versus
3 FA / 3466 / 2025 + Group
1] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Jayakwadi Project – 2,
Aurangabad
2] The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division No. 01,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad .. Respondents
(Orig. Respondents)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 3472 OF 2025
Narayan S/o Bhika Pawar,
Age : 60 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o. Dhaba, Tq. Soygaon,
District : Aurangabad .. Appellant
(Orig. Claimant)
Versus
1] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Jayakwadi Project – 2,
Aurangabad
2] The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division No. 01,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad .. Respondents
(Orig. Respondents)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 3473 OF 2025
1] Nalinibai W/o Bahadursingh Rajput Died
Through the Legal Representatives ...
1-A] Bahadursingh S/o Shansingh Rajput Died
Through the Legal Representatives ..
1-A1] Rejendrasing S/o Bahadursing Rajput,
Age : 50 years, Occu. Agril.,
1-A2] Jitendrasing S/o Bahadursing Rajput,
Age : 48 years, Occu. Agril.,
2] Mankarnikabai W/o Uttamsingh Rajput,
Age : 57 years, Occu. Agril.,
Both R/o. Nandagaon
Tal. Soygaon, District : Aurangabad .. Appellants
(Orig. Claimants)
4 FA / 3466 / 2025 + Group
Versus
1] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Jayakwadi Project – 2,
Aurangabad
2] The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division No. 01,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad .. Respondents
(Orig. Respondents)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 3474 OF 2025
1] Vasanta S/o Sitaram Chavan,
Age 55 years, Occu. Agril.,
2] Bhaidas S/o Jairam Rathod,
Age 48 years, Occu. Agril.,
Both R/o Pipalwadi, Dhaba,
Nandagaon, Tal. Soygaon,
District : Aurangabad .. Appellants
(Orig. Claimants)
Versus
1] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Jayakwadi Project – 2,
Aurangabad
2] The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division No. 01,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad .. Respondents
(Orig. Respondents)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 3476 OF 2025
1] Kantabai W/o Shriram Ragad,
Age : 50 years, Occu. Agril.,
2] Shriram S/o Pandu Ragad Died
Through the Legal Representatives ...
2-A] Sanjay S/o Shriram Ragad,
Age : 40 years, Occu. Agril.,
2-B] Surekha Rajendra Sonne,
Age : 35 years, Occu. Agril.,
5 FA / 3466 / 2025 + Group
3] Supada S/o Shriram Ragad,
Age : 42 years, Occu. Agril.,
All R/o. Nandgaon, Tal. Soygaon,
District : Aurangabad .. Appellants
(Orig. Claimants)
Versus
1] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Jayakwadi Project – 2,
Aurangabad
2] The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division No. 01,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad .. Respondents
(Orig. Respondents)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 3478 OF 2025
1] Gopichand S/o Pita Chavan,
Age : 45 years, Occu. Agril.,
2] Nathhu S/o Bhma Jadhav Died
Through the Legal Representatives...
2-A] Uttam S/o Nathhu Jadhav,
Age : 60 years, Occu. Agril.,
2-B] Abarao S/o Nathhu Jadhav,
Age : 57 years, Occu. Agril.,
2-C] Darasingh S/o Nathhu Jadhav Died
Through the Legal Representatives ...
2-C1] Sagunabai Wd/o Darasingh Jadhav,
Age : 55 years, Occu. Agril.,
2-C2] Vilas S/o Darasingh Jadhav,
Age : 23 years, Occu. Agril.,
2-C3] Akash S/o Darasingh Jadhav,
Age : 19 years, Occu. Agril.,
2-C4] Pujabai W/o Rajesh Rathod,
Age : 31 years, Occu. Agril.,
2-C5] Laxmi W/o Pravin Rathod,
Age : 25 years, Occu. Agril.,
6 FA / 3466 / 2025 + Group
2-D] Raghunath S/o Nathhu Jadhav,
Age : 47 years, Occu. Agril,
2-E] Kashibai w/o Gurumuk Rathod,
Age : 65 years, Occu. Agril.,
All R/o Nandgaon, Tal. Soygaon,
District : Aurangabad .. Appellants
(Orig. Claimants)
Versus
1] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Jayakwadi Project – 2,
Aurangabad
2] The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division No. 01,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad .. Respondents
(Orig. Respondents)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 3479 OF 2025
Bhagwat S/o Dnyndeo Dokhale,
Age. 40 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o. Dhaba, Tal. Soyagaon,
District : Aurangabad .. Appellant
(Orig. Claimant)
Versus
1] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Jayakwadi Project – 2,
Aurangabad
2] The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division No. 01,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad .. Respondents
(Orig. Respondents)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 3480 OF 2025
1] Uttam W/o Tukaram Jadhav,
Age. 60 yeras, Occu. Agril.,
2] Tukaram S/o Vithal Jadhav, Died
Through the Legal Representatives ...
2-A] Sarjabai Wd/o Tukaram Jadhav,
Age. 87 years, Occu. Agril.,
7 FA / 3466 / 2025 + Group
Both R/o. Dhaba, Tal. Soygaon,
District : Aurangabad .. Appellants
(Orig. Claimants)
Versus
1] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Jayakwadi Project – 2,
Aurangabad
2] The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division No. 01,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad .. Respondents
(Orig. Respondents)
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 3481 OF 2025
1] Narsingh S/o Parma Rathod,
Age : 55 years, Occu. Agril.,
2] Bhagirathibai w/o Parma Rathod,
Age : 45 years, Occu. Agril.,
Both R/o Nandagaon,
Tal. Soygaon,
District : Aurangabad .. Appellants
(Orig. Claimants)
Versus
1] The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Jayakwadi Project – 2,
Aurangabad
2] The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division No. 01,
Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad .. Respondents
(Orig. Respondents)
...
Advocate for appellants in all FAs : Mr. D.A. Bide h/f. Mr. Tejas C. Sonawane
AGP for the respondent – State : Mr. S.V. Hange, Mrs. P.V. Diggikar,
Mr. A.R. Kale, Mr. B.B. Bhise, Mr. N.S. Tekale and Mrs. S.S. Joshi in
respective FAs
Advocate for respondent no. 2 – Acquiring Body in all
FAs : Dr. (Mrs.) Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar
...
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 08 APRIL 2026
8 FA / 3466 / 2025 + Group
ORDER :
The First Appeals are taken up for final disposal with the
consent of the parties.
2. The appellants are challenging distinct judgments and
awards passed by the reference Court in their respective reference
applications. Acquisition of the lands in question is for the same
project. The material dates and events are common. Hence, I propose
to decide the appeals by common judgment.
3. The lands of the appellants from village Nandgaon and
Dhaba, Taluka – Soygaon, District – Aurangabad have been acquired
for construction of distributory main canal of Pimpalwadi Minor
Irrigation Tank. The possession of the lands was taken on 29.04.1998
by private negotiations. The notification under section 4 was issued on
29.04.1998. Award under section 11 of the Act was declared on
25.02.2006. The reference Court offered rate of Rs.625/- per R. The
reference Court enhanced it to Rs.2,500/- per R.
4. Following are the material particulars of all Appeals :-
Sr.No First Appeal No. LAR No Party Name Land out of Acquired
Gut No.s Area
1. FA 242/2012 Samadhan Tukaram Jadhav Died Gut No.14 00H 38R
No.3466/2025 LRs Lilabai
2. FA 254/2012 Shashikala Waman Helwade and Gut No.52 00H 28R
No.3467/2025 others
3. FA 224/2012 Pralhad Digamber Jadhav Gut No.28 00H 34R
No.3468/2025
4. FA 246/2012 Ashok Tulshiram Gawande Gut No.44 00H 31R
No.3469/2025
5. FA 244/2012 Ramdas Prabhat Kakane Gut No.34 00H 54R
No.3471/2025
6. FA 249/2012 Narayan Bhika Pawar Gut No.27 00H 21R
No.3472/2025
9 FA / 3466 / 2025 + Group
7. FA 245/2012 Nalinibai Bahadursing Rajput Gut No.62 00H 37R
No.3473/2025 Died LRs Bahadursing Gut No.46 00H 09R
8. FA 247/2012 Vasanta Sitaram Chavan and Gut No.70 00H 17R
No.3474/2025 Gut No.72 00H 18R
others
9. FA 219/2012 Kantabai Shrram Ragad and Gut No.58 00H 27R
No.3476/2025 others Gut No.58 00H 11R
Gut No.57 00H 10R
Gut No.56 00H 13R
10. FA 252/2012 Gopichand Pita Chavan and Gut No.36 00H 32R
No.3478/2025 others Gut No.35 00H 34
11. FA 217/2012 Bhagwat Dnyandeo Dokhale Gut No.35 00H 35R
No.3479/2025
12. FA 241/2012 Uttam Tukaram Jadhav and Gut No.44 00H 14R
No.3480/2025 others Gut No.43 00H 12R
13. FA 250/2012 Narsingh Parma Rathod and Gut No.37 00H 35R
No.3481/2025 others
5. Learned counsel Mr. Bide appearing for the appellants
submits that the Reference Court committed error of jurisdiction in
fixing meager rate of Rs. 2,500/- per R. The rate deducible from the
sale instance at Exhibit 35 to the tune of Rs. 3,937/- per R was
compatible and should have been accepted. It is submitted that under
identical circumstances the Reference Court preferred to fix rate of
Rs. 3,960/- relying upon sale deed dated 27.07.1998 at Exhibit 35. On
the ground of parity, appellants are entitled to receive the highest rate.
Learned counsel has placed on record copies of the award, judgment
dated 13.02.2020 passed in L. A. R. No. 253 of 2012 and letter dated
19.10.2020 issued by S. D. O. to claim enhancement.
6. Per contra, learned counsel Smt. Kalpalata Patil
Bharaswadkar appearing for the acquiring body submits that
reasonable and plausible view has been taken by the Reference Court
10 FA / 3466 / 2025 + Group
and claim for enhancement is unfounded. It is submitted that no
estoppel would operate against the acquiring body and, therefore,
reliance on the judgment dated 13.02.2020 passed by the Reference
Court in L. A. R. No. 253 of 2012 is misplaced. Reliance is placed on
the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India Vs.
Pramod Gupta (D) by L.Rs. and others reported in AIR 2005 SC
3708. It is further submitted that the location and potential of the lands
under acquisition and the lands acquired in L.A.R. No. 253 of 2012
cannot be said to be identical.
7. I have considered rival submissions of the parties. The
lands under acquisition are treated to be dry lands. The sale instance
at Exhibit 35 was pressed into service before the Reference Court by
the appellants. The respondent – acquiring body did not adduce any
evidence. The judgment dated 13.02.2020 passed in L. A. R. No. 253
of 2012 is subsequent in time. No appeal was preferred by the
acquiring body challenging judgment dated 13.02.2020 passed in L. A.
R. No. 253 of 2012. The letter dated 19.10.2020 issued by the S.D.O.
shows acquiescence.
8. The Reference Court fixed the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per R
relying on the rate fixed in L.A.R. No. 253 of 2012. The rate deducible
from sale exemplar at Exhibit 35 is discarded without assigning any
reasons. The acquisition for the project in question was undertaken
11 FA / 3466 / 2025 + Group
from village Pimpalwadi, Dhabha and Nandgaon. The sale exemplar at
Exhibit 35, which was in respect of land from village Pimpalwadi is
compatible and should have been accepted.
9. The appellants are entitled to the benefit of escalation with
cumulative effect in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in
the matters of Huchangouda Vs. Assistant Commissioner and Land
Acquisition Officer reported in (2020)19 SCC 236 and Ali
Mohammad Beigh and others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir
reported in (2017) 4 SCC 717. As per sale exemplar Exhibit 35, the
rate was Rs. 2,250/- per R. After addition of 10% escalation per year
for seven years and six months, the rate works out to be Rs. 3,937/-
per R.
10. I have also gone through the award dated 25.02.2008, by
which lands of the appellants came to be acquired by the self same
award. Lands from village Dabha and Nandgaon were also acquired.
Land gut No. 26 was acquired from village Dabha. The claimant had
preferred L.A.R. No. 253 of 2012 before the Reference Court. It was
allowed vide judgment dated 13.02.2020. By reasoned order and
relying upon the sale deed dated 27.07.1998 at Exhibit 35, the price
was fixed at Rs. 3,960/- per R. I do not find that there is any reason to
discard the rate fixed by the Reference Court. For the selfsame
purpose lands in the present cases are acquired. There is similarity of
12 FA / 3466 / 2025 + Group
the location and potential of the lands. In that case also land was held
to be dry land. I have no hesitation to adopt the rate. It is laid down by
the Supreme Court in various judgments including judgment in the
matter of Meherwal Khewaji Trust (Reg.) Faridkot and others Vs.
State of Punjab and others reported in AIR 2012 SC 2721 that
highest rate of the sale exemplar if found to be genuine and akin to the
land be accepted. The appellants are entitled to the enhancement in
compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,960/- per R for dry land and
Rs.5940/- per R for seasonally irrigated lands.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent – acquiring body has
relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Union
of India Vs. Pramod Gupta (D) by L.Rs. and others (supra) for the
proposition that the principles of estople would not operate against the
acquiring body, which is trite legal position. Non filing of appeal by the
acquiring body would not preclude from raising the question in the
larger public interest. The facts of the present cases are different. The
enhancement is granted to the appellants relying upon reasoned
judgment. Further reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the matter of Chimanlal Hargovind Vs. Special Land
Acquisition Offocer, Poona and others reported in AIR 1988 SC
1652. The principle laid down by the Supreme Court cannot be
13 FA / 3466 / 2025 + Group
disputed. Both judgments cited above would not preclude this Court
from granting enhancement to the appellants.
12. For the reasons stated above, I find that the appeals
preferred by the claimants are bound to be allowed. I, therefore, pass
following order.
ORDER
a. First Appeals are allowed partly.
b. The appellants shall be entitled to receive rate of Rs.3,960/- per
R for dry land and Rs.5940/- per R for seasonally irrigated
lands.
c. The appellants shall not be entitled to the interest and statutory
benefits for the delayed period.
d. The appellants shall be entitled to the interest under Section 28
and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as per Full Bench
judgment in the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash
Shiva Rangari reported in 2016(3) Mh. L. J. 457.
e. Save and except above modification, the impugned judgment
and award shall stand unaltered.
f. The appellants shall pay deficit court fees.
g. Award be drawn accordingly.
h. Record and proceedings shall be sent back.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME ]
JUDGE
arp/
Checking your session…