Bombay High Court
THE MAHARASHTRA KRUSHNA VALLEY DEV. CORP. THR. EXE ENGINEER MEDIUM PROJECT OSMANABAD AND ORSversusPANCHAKSHARI REVANAYYA SWAMI
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The court upheld the enhanced compensation but modified the interest award to conform with the Full Bench precedent.
Summary
The Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Corporation (the acquiring body) appealed against a judgment and award dated 17 June 2013 that enhanced compensation for land acquired for a storage tank project in Wadgaon (Dev.), Osmanabad. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had initially valued the land at Rs 31,000‑39,000 per hectare, but the Reference Court, on a Section 18 reference, raised the value to Rs 1,770 per R for bagayat land and Rs 885 per R for dry land, along with statutory benefits. The appellant argued that the matters were already settled by a Lok Adalat order and that the compensation, especially for bagayat land, only marginally exceeded the four‑times ceiling, seeking no interference except on the interest awarded. The court held that the enhanced compensation was not excessive and should stand, but the direction to pay interest under Section 34 from the notification date was contrary to precedent and needed modification. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed: the award was upheld except for the interest provision, which was aligned with the Full Bench decision in State of Maharashtra v. Kailas Shiva Rangari.
Issues considered
- Whether the compensation enhancement awarded by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is excessive and warrants alteration.
- Whether interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act should be awarded as directed by the Reference Court.
- Whether the prior Lok Adalat settlement bars further interference with the award.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 11, 18, 34, 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation enhancement
- Section 18
- Section 34
- interest award
- Lok Adalat
- reference court
- four‑times rule
- statutory benefits
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:43299
21-FA-4953-2017.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
21 FIRST APPEAL NO. 4953 OF 2017
The Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Corporation
Through Executive Engineer Medium Project And Others
VERSUS
Shivaji Krushna Devkate
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4955 OF 2017
The Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Corporation
Through Executive Engineer Medium Project Osmanabad And Others
VERSUS
Panchakshari Revanayya Swami
……
Mr. Anil M. Gaikwad, Advocate for Appellant-Acquiring Body
Mr. R.V. Naiknaware, Advocate for Respondents-Claimants
……
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 16 SEPTEMBER, 2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard the learned counsel Mr. Anil M. Gaikwad, for the appellant-
Acquiring Body and the learned counsel Mr. R.V. Naiknaware, for the
respondent-claimants.
2. By these appeals, the appellant-Acquiring Body takes exception to
the common impugned Judgment and Award dated 17.06.2013 passed by
the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, in Land
Acquisition References Nos.699 of 2007 and 483 of 2007, whereby the
learned Reference Court partly allowed the references under Section 18 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and enhanced the compensation payable to
the respective respondent-claimants along with statutory benefits.
21-FA-4953-2017.odt
2
3. The lands belonging to the respective respondent-claimants, situated
at village Wadgaon (Dev.), Taluka Tuljapur, District Osmanabad, are as
under:
Sr.No. LAR No. Gat No. Area Acquired
1 699 of 2007 114 94 R
2 483 of 2007 113 1 H 20 R
4. The aforesaid lands came to be acquired for the purpose of Wadgaon
(Dev.) Storage Tank at village Wadgaon (Dev.), Taluka Tuljapur, District
Osmanabad. The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 was published on 13.04.2000. Thereafter, the Special Land Acquisition
Officer passed an Award under Section 11 of the Act on 19.09.2003 and
determined the market value of the acquired lands at rates ranging from
Rs.31,000/- to Rs.39,000/- per Hectare. Being dissatisfied with the
compensation so determined, the claimants accepted the same under protest
and sought references under Section 18 of the Act.
5. Upon consideration of the evidence led by the parties, the learned
Reference Court enhanced the market value to Rs.1,770/- per R, equivalent
to Rs.70,800/- per Acre, for bagayat land and Rs.885/- per R for dry land,
along with the statutory benefits.
6. Learned counsel Mr. Anil M. Gaikwad, appearing for the appellant-
Acquiring Body, submits that the lands acquired in the present matters form
21-FA-4953-2017.odt
3
part of a group of matters arising out of the same acquisition which has
already been compromised before the Lok Adalat vide order dated
17.03.2019 passed in First Appeal No.4956 of 2017 ( Maharashtra Krushna
Valley Development Corporation through Executive Engineer, Medium
Project, Osmanabad v. Pushpa Babasaheb Devkate) and connected matters.
He further submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Reference
Court for dry land is within four times of the rate awarded by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer, whereas the compensation awarded for bagayat
land is only marginally in excess of four times. It is further submitted that
the controversy involved in the present appeals is squarely covered by the
order 17.03.2019 passed in First Appeal No.4956 of 2017 and connected
matters. It is, therefore, submitted that no interference is warranted with the
impugned Judgment and Award, except to the extent of the interest
awarded by the learned Reference Court.
7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel
for the appellant-Acquiring Body and the learned counsel for the
respondent-claimants and, with their able assistance, have carefully perused
the impugned Judgment and Award as well as the material available on
record.
8. The record shows that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had
determined the market value of the acquired lands at rates ranging from
Rs.31,000/- to Rs.39,000/- per Hectare. The learned Reference Court, upon
21-FA-4953-2017.odt
4
appreciation of the material before it, enhanced the compensation to
Rs.1,770/- per R for bagayat land and Rs.885/- per R for dry land.
9. The rate of Rs.1,770/- per R for bagayat land works out to
Rs.1,77,000/- per Hectare. As against the highest rate of Rs.39,000/- per
Hectare determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the
enhancement for bagayat land is thus slightly more than four times i.e.
approximately 4.54 times. The rate of Rs.885/- per R for dry land, on the
other hand, is within four times of the rate determined by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer. Merely because the rate determined for bagayat land
marginally exceeds four times of the highest rate awarded by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer, it cannot, in the facts of the present case, be said
that the compensation determined by the learned Reference Court is
exorbitant or excessive.
10. It is also relevant to note that the lands involved in the present
appeals form part of the same acquisition and project and the matters
arising from the same group of acquisitions have already been settled before
the Lok Adalat, including First Appeal No.4956 of 2017, which came to be
disposed of vide order dated 17.03.2019. In the facts and circumstances of
the present case, I find no sufficient ground to interfere with the market
value determined by the learned Reference Court.
21-FA-4953-2017.odt
5
11. The Government Resolution No.Sankirna-2014/Prak.Kra.4/Bham-
1/A-4 dated 03.11.2016, along with the Corrigenda dated 23.02.2017 and
13.08.2018, indicates the policy of the State Government with regard to
challenge to the enhancement of compensation made by the Reference
Court up to four times of the compensation determined by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer. In the present case, the rate determined for bagayat land
marginally exceeds the said benchmark. Therefore, the said Government
Resolution cannot, by itself, be treated as determinative of the present
appeals. Nevertheless, the aforesaid circumstances, taken together with the
fact that the present acquisition forms part of the same project and that the
group of connected matters has already been settled, do not warrant
interference with the market value determined by the learned Reference
Court.
12. However, as regards the grant of interest is concerned, it is noticed
that the learned Reference Court has directed payment of interest under
Section 34 of the Act from the date of the Notification under Section 4 till
the date of the Award. Such direction is contrary to the law laid down by the
Full Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Kailas Shiva Rangari,
2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457. The direction regarding payment of interest,
therefore, requires modification to that extent.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the market value determined by
the learned Reference Court at the rate of Rs.1,770/- per R, equivalent to
21-FA-4953-2017.odt
6
Rs.70,800/- per Acre, for the acquired bagayat lands does not call for
interference. However, the direction regarding payment of interest under
Section 34 of the Act requires modification. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
(i) The First Appeals are partly allowed.
(ii) The common Judgment and Award dated 17.06.2013 passed by the
learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, in Land
Acquisition References Nos.699 of 2007 and 483 of 2007, is modified to the
extent of interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
(iii) The enhancement of compensation granted by the learned Reference
Court at the rate of Rs.1,770/- per R, equivalent to Rs.70,800/- per Acre, for
the acquired bagayat lands is maintained.
(iv) The respondent-claimants shall be entitled to all consequential
statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation in accordance with the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
(v) The respondent-claimants shall be entitled to interest under Section
34 of the Act strictly in accordance with the law laid down by the Full Bench
of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Kailas Shiva Rangari (supra).
21-FA-4953-2017.odt
7
(vi) Save and except the modification made hereinabove, the common
Judgment and Award dated 17.06.2013 passed by the learned 2nd Joint
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad, in L.A.R. Nos.699 of 2007 and 483
of 2007, shall remain unaltered.
(vii) The modified Award be drawn accordingly.
(viii) The respondent-claimants are permitted to withdraw the amount
deposited by the appellant-Acquiring Body, if any, in this Court, along with
accrued interest thereon, subject to adjustment, if any, necessitated on
account of the modification of interest under Section 34 of the Act.
(ix) After payment of the amount to the claimants, if any excess amount
remains, the same shall be paid to the acquiring body along with the
accrued interest thereon.
(ix) Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
S P Rane
Checking your session…