Bombay High Court

DNYANOBA BHIMRAO PAWARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR

Disposal: PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Bench: NEERAJ P DHOTE

Holding

The Court held that parity applies and the appellant is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs 20 per square foot.

Summary

The appellant, Dnyanoba Pawar, appealed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 seeking a higher compensation for 1 hectare 21 ares of land acquired for earthquake rehabilitation. The original market value was set at Rs 175 per are, later increased to Rs 5,000 per are by the Reference Court. The appellant argued that earlier First Appeals (Nos. 1323 of 2010 and 12 of 2018) decided by the same High Court had awarded a rate of Rs 20 per square foot for land acquired under the same notification and from the same project, and thus parity should apply. The State contended that the lands were distinct and parity should not be granted. The Court held that parity applies because the lands were acquired for the same project under the same notification, even though they were in adjoining villages, and therefore allowed the appellant to receive Rs 20 per square foot, along with interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Act, but denied interest for the delayed period and statutory benefits for that period. The order partially allowed the appeal, modified the compensation rate, and directed the appellant to pay court fee deficit and have the award redrawn.

Issues considered

Whether the principle of parity applies to land acquired from adjoining villages under the same notification for the same project.
Whether the appellant is entitled to the compensation rate of Rs 20 per square foot as awarded in earlier appeals.
Whether interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act is payable to the appellant.
Whether statutory benefits for the delayed period are payable.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 28, 34, 4, 54

Subjects

Land acquisition
Compensation
Parity principle
Interest
Statutory benefits
Section 54
Section 28
Section 34
Earthquake rehabilitation

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:27030
1 923FA3512.2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

923 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3512 OF 2019

Dnyanoba s/o Bhimrao Pawar
Age : 60 years, Occu: Agri,
R/o. Babalsur, Tq. Omerga,
Dist. Osmanabad. ...Appellant
[Ori. Claimant]
VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents

...
Mr. Vivekanand V. Ingale - Advocate for Appellant
Mr. K. N. Lokhande - AGP for the State
...

CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
DATED : 07TH JULY 2026

FINAL ORDER : -

1. This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 [hereinafter referred to as ‘LA Act’], is preferred by the claimant

seeking further enhancement of the compensation awarded for his land

admeasuring 01 Hectare 21 Ares from Block No. 147, situated at Village

Babalsur, Taluka Omerga.

2. The aforesaid land came to be acquired for the purpose of

the Rehabilitation of Persons Affected by the Earthquake. The

Notification under Section 4 of the LA Act was issued on 07.07.1994,

and the Award was passed on 02.08.1996. The Special Land Acquisition

Officer determined the market value at the rate of Rs. 175/- per Are.
2 923FA3512.2019.odt

3. The claimant preferred L.A.R. No. 279 of 2011 seeking

enhancement of the compensation. He led the evidence before the

learned Reference Court. Upon considering the evidence on record, the

learned Reference Court, by its Judgment and Award dated 07.07.2014,

determined the market value at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per R and

awarded the statutory benefits.

4. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the

Claimant/Appellant that this Court, in the connected First Appeals

No.1323 of 2010 and 12 of 2018, decided on 20.02.2026 and

15.06.2026, respectively, determined the market value at the rate of

Rs.20/- per sq.ft. in respect of land acquired under the same

notification, for the same project, and from the same village. He tenders

across the bar copies of the said orders, which are taken on record and

marked as 'Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-2'. He submits that, on the ground of

parity, the claimant is entitled to compensation at the same rate.

5. It is submitted by the learned AGP for the State that, the

learned Reference Court rightly concluded that the land belonging to the

claimant and the land involved in the said First Appeals were distinct.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer considered all the relevant aspects

of the matter and determined reasonable compensation, therefore, no
3 923FA3512.2019.odt
interference is called for. However, he does not dispute the above-

referred orders passed by this Court in the connected appeals.

6. Perusal of the said orders shows that, the First Appeals No.

1323 of 2010 and 12 of 2018 were decided by this Court on 20.02.2026

and 15.06.2026, respectively, and the aforesaid orders were passed on

the ground of parity and enhanced the rate to the extent of Rs. 20/- per

Sq.ft. Undisputedly, the land involved in the present case and the land

which was the subject matter of the said First Appeals were situated in

the adjoining villages and were acquired for the same purpose under the

very same Notification. A copy of the E-statement also supports this

aspect. I find no merit in the submission of the learned AGP that parity

would not be available merely because the lands were from different

villages, as the lands are acquired for the same project. Under such facts

and circumstances of the matter, the appellant is entitled to the above

rate on the ground of parity.

ORDER

[i] The First Appeal is partly allowed.

[ii] The Appellant is entitled to receive rate of Rs. 20/- per square
feet for the acquired land.

[iii] The Appellant shall be entitled to interest under Sections 28
and 34 of the LA Act as payable from the date of final Award
as per the Judgment in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva
Rangari, AIR 2016 Bom 141.
4 923FA3512.2019.odt

[iv] Save and except above modification, impugned judgment and
award shall stand unaltered.

[v] The Appellant shall not be entitled to receive interest and
statutory benefits for the delayed period.

[vi] The Appellant shall pay the deficit court fees.

[vii] Award be drawn up accordingly.

[NEERAJ P. DHOTE]
JUDGE
SG Punde

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…