Bombay High Court
LILACHAND BHANUDAS PATILversusSTATE OF MAH and ANR
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The Court partly allowed the appeals, modifying the compensation to Rs. 1,100 per R by applying the earlier precedent from First Appeal No. 642 of 2008.
Summary
The appellants challenged a 2005 award that fixed compensation for land acquired in Akhatwadi village for the Hatnur Canal Sub‑Distributories Nos. 3‑5. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had awarded Rs. 158.4 per R, the Reference Court enhanced it to Rs. 270 per R, but the claimants sought Rs. 1,000‑1,200 per R. The High Court considered an earlier decision (First Appeal No. 642 of 2008) where a sale instance from the adjacent village of Chahardi was used to determine compensation for a similar acquisition. Relying on that precedent, the Court held that the earlier sale instance was relevant despite the projects being different and modified the compensation to Rs. 1,100 per R, also granting interest and statutory benefits as per State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari. The appeals were partly allowed, the award was modified accordingly, and the claimants were directed to seek any unpaid rental compensation from the Collector.
Issues considered
- Whether the precedent set in First Appeal No. 642 of 2008 can be applied to determine compensation in the present land acquisition case despite differing projects.
- Whether the compensation awarded by the Reference Court should be further enhanced beyond Rs. 270 per R.
- Whether interest and other statutory benefits are payable on the enhanced compensation.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 18, 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- reference court
- precedent
- interest
- statutory benefits
- Hatnur Canal
- Maharashtra
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:40671
1 of 7 907-FA.379.2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
907 FIRST APPEAL NO. 379 OF 2008
SUHALAL PRATAP PATIL AND ANR
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR JALGAON AND
ANR.
...
Mr. Yadnyesh V. Dharmadhikari h/f. Mr. Ajay G. Talhar, Advocate for
Appellants.
Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Ajay D. Pawar, Advocate for the Respondent/acquiring body.
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 383 OF 2008
LILACHAND BHANUDAS PATIL
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
…
Mr. Yadnyesh V. Dharmadhikari h/f. Mr. Ajay G. Talhar, Advocate for
Appellant.
Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Ajay D. Pawar, Advocate for the Respondent/acquiring body.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 381 OF 2008
MRS MALATIBAI MADHAVRAO MARATHE THR LRS MADHAVRAO
NILKANTHA AND ORS
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR JALGAON AND
ANR.
…
Mr. Yadnyesh V. Dharmadhikari h/f. Mr. Ajay G. Talhar, Advocate for
Appellants.
Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Ajay D. Pawar, Advocate for the Respondent/acquiring body.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 380 OF 2008
2 of 7 907-FA.379.2008
SUHALAL PRATAP PATIL
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR JALGAON AND
ANR.
…
Mr. Yadnyesh V. Dharmadhikari h/f. Mr. Ajay G. Talhar, Advocate for
Appellant.
Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Ajay D. Pawar, Advocate for the Respondent/acquiring body.
…
AND
NOT ON BOARD, TAKEN ON BOARD
FIRST APPEAL NO.382 OF 2008
PRATAP YADAV PATIL AND ANR.
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR JALGAON AND
ANR.
…
Mr. Yadnyesh V. Dharmadhikari h/f. Mr. Ajay G. Talhar, Advocate for
Appellants.
Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Ajay D. Pawar, Advocate for the Respondent/acquiring body.
…
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 2nd SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C.:-
1. Mr. Ajay Pawar, learned Advocate is appearing for the
Respondent/acquiring body.
2. Mr. Ajay Pawar, learned Advocate for the acquiring body
seeks leave to add the acquiring body as a party Respondent. Leave is
granted.
3. Amendment to be carried out forthwith.
3 of 7 907-FA.379.2008
4. Since the acquisition proceedings pertain to the year 1988,
the appeals are heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates
for the respective parties.
5. By the present appeals, the Appellants are aggrieved by the
judgment and award dated 24.03.2005 passed by the learned Civil
Judge, Senior Division, Amalner, in LAR Nos.332/1993, 334/1993,
335/1993, 337/1993 and 336/1993, whereby the learned Reference
Court determined the compensation for the acquired land. However, as
the learned Reference Court did not grant the compensation as claimed
by the Claimants, the present appeals have been preferred.
6. Brief facts of the present cases are as under:-
(i) The acquired land situated at village Akhatwadi, Taluka Chopda,
District Jalgaon, was acquired for the purpose of construction of
Hatnur Canal Sub-Distributories Nos.3, 4 and 5.
(ii) The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (for short “the Act”) was published on 07.07.1988.
(iii) The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “SLAO”) passed
an award on 18.03.1991. The SLAO awarded compensation @ of
Rs.158.4/- per R. Being dissatisfied with the meagre
compensation awarded by the SLAO, the Claimants sought
reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Claimants claimed
compensation @ of Rs.1,000/- to Rs.1,200/- per R but, the
4 of 7 907-FA.379.2008
learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation @ of
Rs.270/- per R. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeals are
filed by the Claimants.
7. Mr. Yadnyesh V. Dharmadhikari h/f. Mr. Ajay G. Talhar,
learned Advocate for the Appellants, tenders across the bar the order
passed by this Court in First Appeal No.642 of 2008 dated 14.08.2026,
whereby the land situated at village Tandalwadi, Taluka Chopda,
District Jalgaon, was acquired for the purpose of Hatnur Left Canal
Kurvel Distributory. He submits that the lands situated in these villages
were also acquired for the distributory canals of Hatnur Dam. He
further contends that, while deciding First Appeal No.642 of 2008, this
Court relied upon a sale instance from village Chahardi, which is
adjacent to village Akhatwadi. He has also invited my attention to the
oral evidence led on behalf of the Claimants and contended that the
said evidence establishes that village Chahardi is situated near village
Akhatwadi. Therefore, he prays to consider the same and allow the
appeals.
8. Per contra, Mr. A. M. Phule, learned AGP for the Respondent-
State, and Mr. Ajay D. Pawar, learned Advocate for the
Respondent/acquiring body, vehemently submit that the projects are
different and that merely because, in an earlier matter, this Court relied
upon a sale instance from village Chahardi, the same cannot be a
5 of 7 907-FA.379.2008
ground for granting parity in the present matters. They, therefore, pray
that the order passed by this Court in First Appeal No.642 of 2008 may
not be considered, as the two projects are different.
9. Having heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties
and with their able assistance, I have gone through the record and
proceedings. From the oral evidence led by CW-1, it has come on
record that village Chahardi is situated near village Akhatwadi. There
is no contra evidence led before the learned Reference Court.
Therefore, once it has come on record that Akhatwadi and Chahardi
are adjacent to each other, and in First Appeal No.642 of 2008, the sale
instance from village Chahardi was considered while granting
compensation in respect of the land acquired from village Tandalwadi
for the purpose of Hatnur Left Canal Kurvel Distributory, the said order
assumes relevance in the present matters.
10. In the present case, the land was acquired for Hatnur Canal
Sub-Distributories Nos.3, 4 and 5. In view of the fact that this Court
has already considered the sale instance from village Chahardi and
determined the compensation in First Appeal No.642 of 2008, I find
that, though the projects are different, the said sale instance can be
considered for determining the compensation in the present first
appeals. Therefore, the order passed by this Court in First Appeal
No.642 of 2008 can be relied upon while determining the
6 of 7 907-FA.379.2008
compensation payable in the present matters.
11. As this Court has already relied upon the sale instance from
village Chahardi and determined the compensation on that basis, I am
inclined to partly allow the appeals. Hence, I proceed to pass the
following order:
ORDER
(i) The present appeals are partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award dated 24.03.2005
passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Amalner in LAR Nos.332/1993, 334/1993, 335/1993,
337/1993 and 336/1993 is modified to the extent that
the Claimants shall be entitled to compensation at the
rate of Rs.1,100/- per R for the acquired lands.
(iii) The Claimants shall be entitled to interest and other
statutory benefits in accordance with the law laid down
by the Full Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra
Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari, reported in 2016(3) Mh.L.J.
457.
(iv) If the Claimants have not received the rental
compensation at the aforesaid rate, they are at liberty to
file an application before the Collector, Jalgaon.
7 of 7 907-FA.379.2008
(v) If such an application is filed, the Collector, Jalgaon
shall give an opportunity of hearing to the acquiring
body as well as the State and, thereafter, pass an
appropriate order regarding payment of rental
compensation in accordance with the Government
policy.
(vi) Rest of the award remains unaltered.
(vii) Modified award be drawn accordingly.
(viii) The Claimants to pay deficit Court fee, if any, on the
enhanced amount.
(ix) Pending civil applications, if any, are also disposed of.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Tauseef
Checking your session…