THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION OSMANABAD AND OTHERSversusRAVISHANKAR NARAYAN KORE DIED HIS LRS NARAYAN PANDHARIAPPA KORE

2026:BHC-AUG:42830



                                                       1
                                                                        926-fa-580-2023

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                       FIRST APPEAL NO. 580 OF 2023

                     The Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Division Osmanabad
                                               And Others
                                                VERSUS
                            Ravishankar Narayan Kore Died His Lrs Narayan
                                           Pandhariappa Kore
                                                    ...
                     Mr. G. B. Rajale, Advocate for Appellants
                     Mr. R. V. Gunale h/f Mr. V. D. Gunale, Advocate for
                     Respondent no.2
                                                   …..
                                          CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                             DATED : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2026

                     P.C. :-

                     .         Considering the short controversy in the appeal, I have

                     heard both the learned Advocates for respective sides for final

                     disposal of the First Appeal at admission stage.

                     2.        Feeling dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated

                     04.07.2013, passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division,

                     Osmanabad in Land Acquisition Reference No.701 of 2007,

                     the Acquiring Body is before this Court.

                     3.        Mr. G. B. Rajale, learned Advocate for the appellants

                     would submit that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has

                     granted rate of Rs.605/- per R to the dry land which has been
                                2
                                               926-fa-580-2023

enhanced to Rs.3,300/- per R by the Reference Court. He

further submits that undoubtedly claimants’ land is classified

as dry land. He submits that the compensation granted by the

Reference Court is about six times more than the rate that was

granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. It is further

contention of Mr. Rajale that the Trial Court has placed

mistaken reliance on the sale instance produced by the

claimant as well as upon the orders passed by the Reference

Court in connected matters. Thus, Mr. Rajale, learned

Advocate records his objection to the judgment and award

impugned in the First Appeal.

4.    Per contra, Mr. R. V. Gunale h/f Mr. V. D. Gunale,

learned Advocate for the claimants would advocate the

findings rendered by the Trial Court.

5.    With the able assistance of learned Advocates for both

the sides, I have perused the case papers. The Trial Court has

recorded its exhaustive findings at paragraph nos.17 to 19 of

its judgment. The Reference Court placed reliance on the

earlier order passed in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.450 of

2008, 557 of 2010 and 723 of 2010. It was observed that the

lands which were the subject matter of the earlier Land
                               3
                                                 926-fa-580-2023

Acquisition References were situated in the village adjoining

the village from which the subject matter land was acquired.

The Trial Court placed reliance on the law laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs.

Jogindarsingh 2004(5) ALL MR (SC) 939 and also upon the

cited Land Acquisition Reference for fixing the appropriate

compensation.

6.    Going through the reasoned judgment passed by

learned Judge of the Reference Court, I find that there is

hardly any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment and

award. The view taken by the learned Judge of the Reference

Court is a possible view. Considering that this is a piece of

beneficial legislation, I do not find any merit in the objection

raised by the Acquiring Body in the First Appeal. Hence,

following order:

                            ORDER

      a.    First Appeal stands dismissed.
      b.    The interest part shall be governed by the
      law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court
      in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailas
      Shiva Rangari, 2016(4) All MR 513.
                                    4
                                                      926-fa-580-2023

        c.       The claimants/respondents are permitted to
        withdraw the balance amount to which they are
        entitled after fiving effect to the judgment of
        Kailash Shiva Rangari supra insofar as it relates to
        interest.
        d.       Any security already given/offered by the
        claimants stands discharged.
        e.       The Acquiring Body/Appellant is permitted
        to withdraw any amount which is found excess.
        f.       Civil Application if any, stands disposed of.



                                        ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )

Rushikesh/2026