Bombay High Court
NIVRUTI GANPATI TARALKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The Court held that the appellants' land is to be classified as semi‑irrigated and therefore compensation must be fixed at Rs 6 lakh per acre, superseding the uniform rate awarded by the reference Court.
Summary
The appellants’ agricultural lands were acquired for the Katpur Minor Irrigation Tank and were awarded a uniform compensation of Rs 7 lakh per hectare by the reference Court. The appellants contended that their lands were semi‑irrigated and thus entitled to a higher rate of Rs 6 lakh per acre as fixed category‑wise by this Court in earlier orders. The acquiring body argued there was no evidence of water sources to justify a semi‑irrigated classification. The Court examined the evidence, including 7/12 extracts and utility bills, and found sufficient proof that the lands were at least semi‑irrigated, with no contrary evidence. Consequently, the Court partially allowed the appeals, modified the award to Rs 6 lakh per acre, and ordered the acquiring body to deposit the balance with interest. The Court also directed payment of deficit court fees and clarified that interest would be governed by a prior judgment.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellants' land qualifies as semi‑irrigated land for compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.
- Whether the uniform compensation rate of Rs 7 lakh per hectare awarded by the reference Court is erroneous in view of the category‑wise rates fixed by this Court.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 18
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- semi‑irrigated land
- category‑wise valuation
- appeal
- interest
- deficit court fees
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:45727
905-FA-486-22+4.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 486 OF 2022
1. Govind Nagnath Ghayal
2. Balaji Nagnath Ghayal ..APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Latur
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur ..RESPONDENTS
WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 487 OF 2022
Sopan Shankar Jambhaldare ..APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Latur
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur ..RESPONDENTS
WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 488 OF 2022
Vishwambhar Gangaram Waghmare ..APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Latur
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur ..RESPONDENTS
WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 489 OF 2022
Raghunath Gyanoba More
(Died) Through L.Rs.
1. Sojarbai Raghunath More
2. Suman Dattu Pawar
3. Sunanda Vasudeo Pawar
1 / 7
905-FA-486-22+4.odt
4. Janak Raghunath More
5. Nilkanth Raghunath More ..APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Latur
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur ..RESPONDENTS
WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 490 OF 2022
Nivruti Ganpati Taralkar ..APPELLANT
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Latur
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation Division, Latur ..RESPONDENTS
....
Mr. G.K. Sontakke, Advocate for appellants
Mr. S.N. Kendre, A.G.P. for respondent no.1 – State
Mr. R.B. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no.2
....
CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
1. Being aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 29 th
July, 2008 passed by the learned 3 rd Joint C.J.S.D., Latur in L.A.R. No. 330 of
1999, the appellants / claimants have preferred these appeals.
2. The details of appeals are as follows :-
Sr.No. First Appeal L.A.R. No. Details of land
1 H 49 R Gut No.2
1 486 of 2022 330 of 1999
Seasonally Irrigated
2 / 7
905-FA-486-22+4.odt
46 R Gut No.39
2 487 of 2022 402 of 1999
Seasonally Irrigated
25 R Gut No. 132/1
3 488 of 2022 386 of 1999
Seasonally Irrigated
1 H 50 R Gut No. 77/2
4 489 of 2022 1222 of 1999
Seasonally Irrigated
42 R Gut No. 122
5 490 of 2022 319 of 1999
Seasonally Irrigated
3. At the outset, Mr. Sontakke, learned counsel for the appellants
pointed out to me that the other first appeals and cross-objections arising out
of the these first appeals, which are filed in other land acquisition references,
have already been disposed of by this Court with reasoned order. It would
submit that this Court has fixed value of the lands category-wise. He would
further submit that in view of the same, these first appeals may be disposed of
at the admission stage granting compensation to the appellants / claimants
holding the land as semi-irrigated. He placed on record across the bar copy of
order dated 11th August, 2026 passed by this Court in various first appeals
and cross-objections led by Cross-Objection No. 227 of 2026 in First Appeal
No. 3022 of 2015. Same is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification.
Suffice to note, subsequently some typo-graphical correction is also caused in
the said order by speaking to the minutes order dated 24th August, 2026.
4. Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the acquiring body did not
dispute that the cases cited by Mr. Sontakke are the same which arise out of
the common judgment and award which is subject matter of this first appeal.
3 / 7
905-FA-486-22+4.odt
5. In the light of this, very short issue to be decided in this appeal
remains to be answered. Hence, at the request of learned counsel for the
appellants, these first appeals are being disposed of at the admission stage.
6. Appellants’ agricultural lands were acquired by the respondent –
authorities for construction of Katpur Minir Irrigation Tank of village
Khopegaon, Khaneri, Kava and Wasangaon. Consequent to the acquisition,
the S.L.A.O. granted compensation. Being aggrieved by the deficit
compensation, the claimants / appellants approached the reference Court
under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. After hearing all the parties,
the reference Court passed common judgment and award dated 29 th July,
2008 thereby granting uniform rate of Rs.7 lakh per ‘Hector’ to all the
claimants / appellants, irrespective of categorisation of the land. Being
aggrieved thereby, the acquiring body filed first appeals in this Court, while
some of the claimants also filed cross-objections. This Court, vide reasoned
order, observed that the reference Court erred in granting uniform rate of
compensation i.e. Rs.7 lakh per ‘Hector’ to all the claimants. For the reasons
recorded therein, this Court held that the compensation shall be @ Rs.4 lakh
per ‘Acre’ for dry land, Rs.6 lakh per ‘Acre’ for semi-irrigated land and Rs.8
lakh per ‘Acre’ for irrigated land. At Paragraph No.8 of the said order,
categorisation of the lands was also prescribed. Suffice to note, there was
some typographical error, which was corrected by allowing speaking to the
minutes of the said order.
4 / 7
905-FA-486-22+4.odt
7. Now, Mr. Sontakke, learned counsel for the appellants submits
that the appellants’ land has to be categorised as semi-irrigated and
compensation be paid holding the appellants entitled for compensation Rs.6
lakh per ‘Acre’. He submits that although there was ample evidence on
record, still the reference Court did not grant compensation corresponding to
the entitlement. Thus, Mr. Sontakke would pray to allow the first appeals.
8. Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the acquiring body would
submit that there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the appellants’
land was having any water source. He submits that although this Court has
fixed the compensation category-wise, the appellants are not entitled for such
compensation for want of any evidence.
9. Heard learned counsel for both sides extensively. I have also gone
through the cited judgments. The only issue whether the appellants are
entitled for compensation holding their land as semi-irrigated. To this
finding, there is description by the reference Court at Paragraph No.18 of its
judgment and award, which reads thus :-
“18. On perusal of 7/12 extracts, the acquired lands appear
to have water sources. The receipts of sale of sugarcane,
electricity bills, etc. takes me to the conclusion that the claimants
have not received proper compensation from the LAO. Claimants
have examined witness, who has sold his land vide sale deed
Ex.22. There is no necessity to examine the witness on the sale
deed according to the Supreme Court in AIR 2001 SC 1117 (LAO
Vs. Narsayya).”
5 / 7
905-FA-486-22+4.odt
10. In my considered opinion, this observation was in continuation of
the evidence tendered by Appellant No.2 – Balaji in First Appeal No. 486 of
2022 and thereafter only the reference Court has observed which is at
described in Paragraph No.18. In my considered opinion, there is sufficient
evidence to hold that the appellants’ land would be categorised at least as
semi-irrigated land. Suffice to note, there is no contra evidence by the
acquiring body as against this finding. I am cautious to note that the
arguments advanced by Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the acquiring
body, that in other cases the acquiring body has challenged the said judgment
and award. However, it is a matter of fact that said appeals are disposed of
by this Court as per the cited order.
11. In view of this, I find that the appellants have made out successful
case for seeking enhancement in the compensation. Hence I pass the
following order :-
ORDER
(I) First Appeals are partly allowed.
(II) The appellants are entitled for compensation @
Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs) per Acre. To that
extent the impugned award be modified
(III) The acquiring body shall deposit the balance amount of
compensation together with interest in this Court within a
period of six months from today.
6 / 7
905-FA-486-22+4.odt
(IV) The Appellants to pay deficit court fees, if any, within a
period of one month from today.
(V) The interest part shall be covered by the Full Bench of this
Court in case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva
Rangari, 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457.
(VI) The Appellants shall not be entitled for any interest or
statutory benefits for the delayed period.
(VII) After depositing the award amount by the acquiring body,
the appellants shall be entitled to withdraw the same
without making any separate application to this Court.
(VIII) First Appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )
SSD
7 / 7
Checking your session…