SUBHASH JAGANNATH PATILversusTHE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, UPPER TAPI PROJECT,

2026:BHC-AUG:45706
                                                                           64-FA-4441-2016.odt
                                                 1

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              64 FIRST APPEAL NO. 4441 OF 2016

                                    Subhash Jagannath Patil
                                            VERSUS
                     The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Tapi Project,

                                              ……
          Mr. A.B.Kale, Advocate for Appellant
          Mr. V.V. Tarde, Advocate for Respondent No.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

          21.04.2006 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Udgir,

          in Land Acquisition Reference No.283 of 2001.


          3.     Learned counsel for the appellant tendered across the Bar a copy of

          the order passed by the National Lok Adalat on 08.02.2020. It is submitted

          that the learned Reference Court had decided Land Acquisition Reference

          Nos.283 of 2001, 284 of 2001, 289 of 2001 and 290 of 2001. The present

          appeal arises out of LAR No.283 of 2001 (First Appeal No.4441 of 2016). It

          is submitted that the land of the appellant was acquired from the same

          village, namely, Dhargir, Taluka Erandol, District Jalgaon, for the same

          public purpose, i.e. Medium Project, and under the very same notification as
                                                               64-FA-4441-2016.odt
                                        2

involved in the aforesaid matters. It is, therefore, submitted that the

controversy involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the said

order of the National Lok Adalat and, consequently, the present appeal may

also be disposed of in terms thereof.


4.     Learned counsel Mr. V.V. Tarde for respondent No.2/Acquiring Body

does not dispute the aforesaid position. He submits that before the National

Lok Adalat, the matter was settled between the parties and it was agreed to

accept the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- for jirayat lands, Rs.4,00,000/- for bagayat

lands and 80% of the amount of valuation of the fruit-bearing trees. He

further submits that he has no objection to passing a similar order in the

present matter.


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 has already been settled before

the National Lok Adalat vide its order dated 08.02.2020 passed in First

Appeal No.3785 of 2019 and connected matters, 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 present First Appeal is disposed of in terms of the order dated
08.02.2020 passed by the National Lok Adalat in First Appeal No.3785 of
2019 and connected matters.
                                                                    64-FA-4441-2016.odt
                                          3


(ii)       The appellants shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of
Rs.2,00,000/- for jirayat land and Rs.4,00,000/- for bagayat land as per
categorization done by the Reference Court.


(iii)      The appellant-claimant shall be entitled for the compensation
towards fruit bearing trees @ 80% of the amount determined in the
valuation report.


(v)        The claimant shall be entitled to consequential statutory benefits on
the enhanced compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894.

(vi)       The appellant-claimant shall be entitled to interest under Sections 28
and 34 of the Act, strictly in accordance with the Full Bench decision in
State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457.

(vii)      The claimant shall pay deficit court fees, if any, on the enhanced
compensation.


(viii)     The Claimants shall not be entitled for the interest for the delayed
period, if any.


(ix)       Modified awards be drawn accordingly.


(x)        Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.




                                               [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                         JUDGE




S P Rane