ANANT BHANUDAS LOMTEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:46164
                                                                          31-FA-4532-2017.odt
                                                 1

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             31 FIRST APPEAL NO. 4532 OF 2017

                                    Anant Bhanudas Lomte
                                           VERSUS
                             The State Of Maharashtra And Others

                                             ……
          Mr. A.S. More, Advocate for Appellant
          Mr. S.S. Dande, 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 appellant–original claimant and

          the learned AGP for the respondent–State.


          2.     The present First Appeal is preferred by the appellant–original

          claimant challenging the Judgment and Award dated 17.06.2011 passed by

          the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, in Land Acquisition

          Reference No.81 of 2006, whereby the learned Reference Court enhanced

          the compensation for the acquired land while treating it as dry-crop land.


          3.     The land of the appellant, admeasuring 41 R out of Gat No.34/1,

          situated at village Domgaon, Taluka Paranda, District Osmanabad, was

          acquired for the construction of the Sina Kolegaon Medium Project. The

          notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short,

          “the Act”), was published on 29.09.1985. The Special Land Acquisition
                                                                31-FA-4532-2017.odt
                                      2

Officer passed an award under Section 11 of the Act, determining

compensation at the rate of Rs.37,093/- per hectare. Being dissatisfied with

the compensation awarded, the appellant accepted the amount under

protest and sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement

of compensation.


4.     By the impugned Judgment and Award, the learned Reference Court

enhanced the compensation to Rs.54,000/- per acre for dry-crop land,

together with statutory benefits. The appellant has preferred the present

appeal seeking enhancement of compensation by treating the acquired land

as irrigated land.


5.     Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the acquired land was

irrigated and that the appellant was cultivating sugarcane. He contends that

the learned Reference Court has not properly appreciated the evidence

relating to the cultivation of sugarcane and has erroneously treated the

acquired land as dry-crop land. He, therefore, submits that the appellant is

entitled to compensation on the basis that the acquired land was irrigated.


6.     Per contra, the learned AGP supports the impugned Judgment and

Award. He submits that the learned Reference Court has properly

appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and has rightly concluded

that the appellant failed to establish that the acquired land was irrigated.

He, therefore, submits that no interference is warranted and prays for

dismissal of the appeal.
                                                                31-FA-4532-2017.odt
                                      3


7.     I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel

for the respective parties and perused the impugned Judgment and Award

and the record and proceedings.


8.     The principal issue for consideration is whether the appellant has

established that the acquired land was irrigated. In this regard, reliance is

placed on the 7/12 extract at Exhibit 31, pertaining to Gat No.34, which

records cultivation of sugarcane during the years 1998–1999 and from

2002–2003 to 2009–2010. However, the entries regarding cultivation of

sugarcane subsequent to the relevant date of acquisition do not, by

themselves, establish that the acquired land was irrigated at the time of

acquisition. No cogent oral or documentary evidence has been brought on

record to establish that irrigation facilities were available to the acquired

land at the relevant time.


9.     In view of the above, the appellant has failed to establish that the

acquired land was irrigated at the relevant time. Therefore, no interference

with the finding of the learned Reference Court treating the acquired land as

dry-crop land is warranted. Consequently, the appellant is not entitled to

enhanced compensation on the basis that the acquired land was irrigated.


10.    On consideration of the aforesaid material, I find that the learned

Reference Court has assessed the evidence relating to the irrigation status of

the acquired land and recorded a finding that the appellant failed to
                                                                    31-FA-4532-2017.odt
                                            4

establish that the land was fully or seasonally irrigated. The entries relating

to sugarcane cultivation in certain years, particularly those subsequent to

the acquisition, are insufficient to establish the irrigation status of the

acquired land at the relevant time. No perversity or illegality is

demonstrated in the finding recorded by the learned Reference Court. The

appellant has, therefore, failed to make out a case for further enhancement

of compensation by treating the acquired land as irrigated land.


11.        In view of the above, the appeal is devoid of merit and deserves to be

dismissed.


12.        The First Appeal is dismissed.


13.        Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.




                                                [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                          JUDGE



S P Rane