Bombay High Court

THE STATE OF MAH THR. COLLECTOR OSMANABAD AND ANRversusGEETABAI EKNATH CHAUGALE AND ANR

Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: SANJAY A DESHMUKH

Holding

The claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.1,20,000 per acre with 12% interest from the date of award, and the State's appeals are dismissed.

Summary

The State of Maharashtra appealed to reduce compensation awarded to claimants whose lands were acquired for the Benitura Medium Project under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The claimants argued that, like a previous case (First Appeal No.765 of 2007), their irrigated lands should attract the enhanced rate of Rs.1,20,000 per acre on the principle of parity. The Court examined the evidence of water facilities and the earlier judgment, and held that parity applied, granting the higher compensation. It also modified the interest component, raising it to 12% per annum from the date of award, citing State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari. Consequently, the State's appeals were dismissed, the claimants' cross‑objections were allowed, and the award was partly set aside and modified accordingly.

Issues considered

Whether the claimants are entitled to the enhanced compensation rate of Rs.1,20,000 per acre on the principle of parity with the earlier case.
Whether the interest rate on compensation should be 12% per annum instead of 8%.
Whether interest is payable from the date of award.
Whether the State Government's appeal to reduce the compensation should be allowed.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4

Subjects

Land acquisition
Compensation
Parity principle
Interest rate
Statutory benefits
Irrigated land
Benitura Medium Project

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:17300

1 901 n 943 FA.625.2012 ORS.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

901 FIRST APPEAL NO. 625 OF 2012

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH COLLECTOR OSMANABAD
VERSUS
DATTU YADHAVRAO MANE, DIED THROUGH L.RS.
MADHUKAR DATTU MANE AND ANOTHER

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 623 OF 2012

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH COLLECTOR OSMANABAD AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
MANIK CHANBASAPPA RACHETTI, DIED THR. L.RS.
PANDIT MANIK RACHETTI AND OTHERS

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 624 OF 2012

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH COLLECTOR OSMANABAD AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
GEETABAI EKNATH CHAUGALE AND ANOTHER

AND
CROSS-OBJECTION (STAMP) NO.10001 OF 2026
IN FA/625/2012

DATTU YADHARAO MANE DIED THR. L.RS.
MADHUKAR DATTU MANE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH COLLECTOR OSMANABAD AND ANOTHER

AND
CROSS-OBJECTION (STAMP) NO.9994 OF 2026
IN FA/624/2012
2 901 n 943 FA.625.2012 ORS.odt

GEETABAI EKNATH CHAUGALE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
THROUGH COLLECTOR OSMANABAD AND ANOTHER

AND
943 FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 1387 OF 2014

PANDIT MANIK RACHETTI DIED THROUGH L.RS
DHANRAJ PANDIT RACHETTI AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR OSMANABAD

...
Mr. Shashikiran N. Patil & Mr. N. S. Birajdar, Advocates for Claimants.
Mr. S. B. Jadhav, AGP for the State.
Mr. S. G. Sangle, Advocate for acquiring body.
...

CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 18th April, 2026.

Per Court:

1 First Appeal Nos.623, 624 and 625 of 2012 have been

preferred by the State Government for reducing the amount of

compensation against the common judgment and award dated 17 th

April, 2010, passed by the learned Land Reference Court, Taluka

Omerga, District Osmanabad, in LAR Nos.412, 414 and 427 of 2009,

whereas the cross-objections and First Appeal (Stamp) No.1387 of

2014 are filed by the claimants raising the grievance that inadequate

compensation has been awarded to them.
3 901 n 943 FA.625.2012 ORS.odt

2 The learned Advocate for the claimants submitted that the

claimants’ lands are acquired for the construction of Benitura Medium

Project, Turgaon, Tahsil Omerga, District Osmanabad, as per the

notification issued and published under Section 4 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the said Act”), dated 18 th December,

1987.

3 The learned Advocate for the claimants pointed out the

judgment dated 11th February, 2026, passed by this Court in First

Appeal No.765 of 2007 with cross-objection, by which this Court

determined the compensation @ Rs.1,20,000/- per Acre for irrigated

land. He submitted that the claimants’ lands and the land of the

claimant in First Appeal No.765 of 2007 were acquired for one and the

same purpose and by one and same notification. Therefore, the

principle of parity is applicable to the claimants’ case.

4 The learned Advocate for the claimants pointed out that

there is well situated in the acquired lands by which the claimants were

cultivating commercial crop. He also pointed out the award, which

corroborates the same. It is lastly prayed to allow the cross-objections

and First Appeal (Stamp) No.1387 of 2014 filed by the claimants and to

dismiss the first appeals filed by the State Government.
4 901 n 943 FA.625.2012 ORS.odt

5 The learned AGP and the learned Advocate for the

acquiring body submitted that the learned Reference Court has

awarded an excessive amount of compensation without due

consideration of the evidence on record. It is lastly prayed to allow the

appeals filed by the State Government and to dismiss the cross-

objections and First Appeal (Stamp) No.1387 of 2014 filed by the

claimants.

6 On perusal of the impugned judgment and award and the

judgment of this Court in First Appeal No.765 of 2007 (supra), it is

crystal clear that the claimants’ lands and the land of the claimant in

First Appeal No.765 of 2007 were acquired for one and the same

project. The claimants are therefore, entitled to the enhanced rate of

compensation, on the principle of parity, as per the judgment of this

Court in First Appeal No.765 of 2007 (supra). The claimants have

established that their lands are having water facility. Thus, the

claimants’ lands are irrigated and therefore, on the principle of parity,

they are entitled to compensation @ Rs.1,20,000/- per Acre.

7 In view of the above, the appeals filed by the State

Government deserve to be dismissed. The cross-objections and First

Appeal (Stamp) No.1387 of 2014 filed by the claimants deserve to be

allowed. The impugned judgment and award deserves to be partly set
5 901 n 943 FA.625.2012 ORS.odt

aside. Hence, the following order:-

ORDER

I. The first appeals filed by the State Government are
dismissed.

II. The cross-objections and First Appeal (Stamp)
No.1387 of 2014 filed by the claimants are allowed.

III. The impugned judgment and award is partly set
aside and modified as under:-

a) The claimants are entitled to the
compensation @ Rs.1,20,000/- per Acre,
including the earlier amount of compensation
awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and
enhanced by the learned Reference Court.
The claimants are entitled to the statutory
benefits like component, interest and
solatium as per the Land Acquisition Act,
1894.

b) The claimants are entitled to the interest
under the caption of component @ 12% per
annum, instead of 8% per annum.

c) It is clarified that the claimants are entitled
for interest from the date of award, as per the
Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case
of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva
Rangari, reported in, 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457.
6 901 n 943 FA.625.2012 ORS.odt

d) Rest of the judgment and award is
confirmed.

IV. The claimants are not entitled to interest for the
delayed period, which was condoned by this Court,
if any.

V. The enhanced amount of compensation with
statutory interest etc. shall be deposited in this court
within a period of six months from today and on
payment of deficit Court fee, if any, it be paid to the
claimants.

VI. Award be drawn up accordingly.

VII. Pending civil applications, if any, is disposed of.

VIII. Record and proceedings be sent back.

[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]
nga

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…