Bombay High Court
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORSversusMANOHAR LIMBAJI TAKALE AND ANR
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The Reference Court correctly classified the land as irrigated and the claimants are entitled to interest under Section 34 as per the Full Bench precedent.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment of the Reference Court which had re‑classified land acquired for Percolation Tank No. 4 as irrigated and enhanced compensation from Rs 710 per R to Rs 4,000 per R, also awarding interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. The State argued that the land was merely dry‑crop land and that interest should not be payable from the date of possession. The Court examined the evidence, including a 7/12 extract showing a well on the land and oral testimony of cultivation of sugarcane and wheat, and held that the presence of a well indicated irrigation, justifying the higher compensation. It also clarified that interest under Section 34 is payable from the date of the award by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, following the Full Bench decision in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed: the interest entitlement was confirmed, while the rest of the compensation award was left unchanged.
Issues considered
- Whether the acquired land should be classified as irrigated land for the purpose of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
- Whether interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is payable from the date of taking possession or from the date of the award by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 18, 34
Subjects
- land acquisition
- irrigated land
- compensation
- percolation tank
- interest under Section 34
- reference under Section 18
- appellate decision
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:27369
1 of 4 911-FA.676.2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
911 FIRST APPEAL NO. 676 OF 2017
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
VERSUS
MANOHAR LIMBAJI TAKALE AND ANR
...
Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for the Appellants-State.
Mr. Vitthal D. Bhise, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
...
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14553 OF 2016
IN FA/676/2017
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
VERSUS
MANOHAR LIMBAJI TAKALE AND ANR
…
Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for the Appellants-State.
Mr. D. M. Pingle, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
…
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 675 OF 2017
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
VERSUS
SANJAY RAMKISAN TAKALE
…
Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for the Appellants-State.
Mr. Vitthal D. Bhise, Advocate for Respondent.
…
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 2nd JULY, 2026
P.C.:-
FIRST APPEAL Nos.676 OF 2017 and 675 OF 2017:-
1. Heard Mr. D. R. Korde, learned AGP for the Appellants/State.
By consent of the learned AGP, the matters are taken up for final
2 of 4 911-FA.676.2017
hearing at the admission stage.
2. By the present appeals, the Appellants/State are aggrieved by
the common judgment and award dated 17.03.2016 and 29.01.2016
passed by the learned 4 th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna, in
L.A.R. Nos.337 of 2013 and 788 of 2011, whereby the compensation
awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer has been enhanced.
3. Learned AGP submits that the acquired land was acquired for
Percolation Tank No.4. He submits that, having regard to the nature
and quality of the land and the material available on record before the
Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO), the acquired land was rightly
treated as dry crop land and compensation at the rate of Rs.710/- per R
was awarded.
4. Being dissatisfied with the said award, the Claimants sought
a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
contending that the compensation awarded by the SLAO was
inadequate. Learned AGP submits that the Claimants failed to establish
that the acquired land was irrigated land. However, solely on the basis
of the Claimants' contention, the learned Reference Court treated the
acquired land as irrigated land and enhanced the compensation to
Rs.4,000/- per R. It is, therefore, contended that, in the absence of
cogent evidence, the finding recorded by the learned Reference Court
that the acquired land was irrigated land deserves to be set aside. It is
3 of 4 911-FA.676.2017
further submitted that the learned Reference Court has awarded
interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act from the date of
taking possession, which is contrary to the law laid down by the Full
Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash
Shiva Rangari, reported in 2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457.
5. Despite service, none appears on behalf of the
Respondents/Claimants.
6. I have heard the learned AGP for the Appellants and perused
the record as well as the judgment and award passed by the learned
Reference Court. There is no dispute that the acquired land was
acquired for Percolation Tank No.4. The SLAO treated the acquired
land as dry crop land and awarded compensation at the rate of
Rs.710/- per R. However, before the learned Reference Court, the
Claimants produced the 7/12 extract, which clearly shows the
existence of a well in the acquired Gat number. The Claimants also
adduced oral evidence that they were cultivating crops such as
sugarcane and wheat. Even assuming that the crop pattern is not taken
into consideration, the existence of a well in the acquired land itself
indicates that the land was irrigated. Therefore, the learned Reference
Court rightly held that the acquired land was irrigated land and
accordingly enhanced the compensation.
4 of 4 911-FA.676.2017
7. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere
with the judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court,
except to clarify the entitlement of the Claimants to interest under
Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in accordance with law.
Hence, I pass the following order:-
ORDER
(i) The first appeals are partly allowed.
(ii) The Claimants are entitled to receive interest under
Section 34 of the Act, be calculated from the date of
award passed by the SLAO as enunciated by Full Bench
of this Court in the case of Kailash Shiva Rangari
(supra).
(iii) Rest of the judgment and award dated 17.03.2016 and
29.01.2016 passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge,
Senior Division, Jalna, in L.A.R. Nos.337 of 2013 and
788 of 2011 remain unaltered.
(iv) Pending civil applications, if any, are also disposed of.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Tauseef
Checking your session…