MAHADEO MANIK SATPUTEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

2026:BHC-AUG:44557
                                                                          29-FA-4046-2017.odt
                                                    1

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             29 FIRST APPEAL NO. 4046 OF 2017

                                    Mahadeo Manik Satpute
                                           VERSUS
                             The State Of Maharashtra And Another
                                             ……
          Mr. Santosh N. Patne, Advocate for Appellant
          Mr. S.N. Morampalle, AGP for Respondents No.1 and 2
                                             ……

                                             CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                             DATE       : 28 SEPTEMBER, 2026
          PER COURT :

          1.     Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.


          2.     The present appeal arises out of the Judgment and Award dated
          17.06.2014 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division,
          Osmanabad, in Land Acquisition Reference No.518 of 2011.

          3.     The learned counsel for the appellant has tendered across the Bar a
          copy of the order dated 31.08.2026 passed by this Court in First Appeal
          No.4047 of 2017, wherein this Court determined the market value of the
          acquired bagayat land at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per R, i.e. Rs.2,40,000/- per
          acre. He submits that the controversy involved in the present appeal is
          squarely covered by the aforesaid order. However, he fairly submits that the
          land acquired in the said matter was irrigated land, whereas the land
          acquired in the present matter is seasonally irrigated land. He, therefore,
          submits that the present appeal deserves to be disposed of in terms thereof.


          4.     The learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 fairly
          concedes the aforesaid position.
                                                                      29-FA-4046-2017.odt
                                           2

5.         Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel

for the respective parties and in view of the admitted position that the

controversy involved in the present appeal is covered by the decision of this

Court in the aforementioned matter, I see no reason to take a different view.

The present appeal, therefore, deserves to be disposed of in terms of the said

order. Hence, the following order:


                                     ORDER

(i)        The First Appeal is partly allowed.


(ii)       Claimant is entitled to receive the compensation at the rate of
Rs.4,500/- per R. for seasonally irrigated land i.e. Rs.1,80,000/- per Acre.


(iii)      The claimant is entitled to receive the interest under sections 28 and
34 of the Act from the date of award in view of the law laid down by the
Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailas Shiva
Rangari, 2016 (3), 457.

(iv)       Modified award be drawn accordingly.


(v)        Rest of the award remains unaltered.


(vi)       Claimant to pay the deficit court fees, if any, on enhanced amount.


(vii)      Pending civil applications, if any, are also disposed of



                                                 [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                           JUDGE

S P Rane