PADMAKAR RAMRAO AMBEGAONKARversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ANR

2026:BHC-AUG:46446
                                                                           41-FA-678-2010.odt
                                                 1

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              41 FIRST APPEAL NO. 678 OF 2010

                               Padmakar Ramrao Ambegaonkar
                                           VERSUS
                             The State Of Maharashtra And Another
                                               ……
          Mr. H.V. Patil, Advocate for Appellant
          Mr. B.A. Shinde, AGP for Respondent No.1-State
          Mr. S.S. Manale, Advocate for Respondent No.2
                                               ……

                                          CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                          DATE       : 28 SEPTEMBER, 2026
          PER COURT :

          1.     Heard learned counsel for the parties.


          2.     The present First Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Award

          dated 03.12.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,

          Aurangabad, in Land Acquisition Reference No.924 of 1998 (Old LAR

          No.501 of 1998).


          3.     The claimant owned land admeasuring 9 Hectares 71 R from Block

          No.32, situated at village Vadgaon, Taluka Nilanga, District Latur. Out of the

          said land, 5 Hectares was acquired for the purpose of construction of

          Percolation Tank at village Vadgaon. The notification under Section 4 of the

          Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 14.07.1992. The Special Land

          Acquisition Officer thereafter passed an award under Section 11 of the Act

          and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.70,000/- per Acre. Being

          dissatisfied with the compensation awarded, the claimant accepted the
                                                                41-FA-678-2010.odt
                                       2

amount under protest and sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act for

enhancement of compensation.


4.     Before the learned Reference Court, the claimant relied upon the sale

instance at Exhibit 44 dated 30.01.1991 pertaining to village Tupdi. Under

the said sale deed, land admeasuring 1 Hectare 35 R was sold for a

consideration of Rs.1,95,000/-. The learned Reference Court relied upon the

said sale instance and, after making the requisite adjustment, determined

the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.1,25,000/- per

Hectare by treating it as dry land. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of

compensation so determined, the claimant has preferred the present appeal.


5.       Learned counsel Mr. Patil for the appellant submits that, at the

relevant time, no sale instance from village Vadgaon was available and,

therefore, the claimant relied upon the sale instance from village Tupdi. He

submits that the learned Reference Court erred in treating the acquired land

as dry land. According to him, the award of the Special Land Acquisition

Officer itself records the existence of a well and compensation has also been

awarded separately towards the well. He submits that the existence of the

well indicates that the acquired land was capable of irrigation and,

therefore, ought to have been treated as seasonally irrigated land. He,

therefore, submits that the market value determined by the learned

Reference Court for dry land deserves to be suitably enhanced by applying

the multiplier applicable to seasonally irrigated land.
                                                                41-FA-678-2010.odt
                                     3


6.     Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Manale for the acquiring body, as

well as the learned AGP, support the impugned Judgment and Award. They

submit that merely because separate compensation was awarded towards

the well, the acquired land cannot be treated as irrigated land. According to

them, the learned Reference Court has already considered the material on

record and has rightly determined the market value by treating the land as

dry land. They, therefore, submit that no further enhancement is warranted.


7.     I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel

for the parties. With their assistance, I have perused the Record and

Proceedings and the impugned Judgment and Award.


8.     There is no dispute that the land in question was acquired for the

purpose of construction of the Percolation Tank at village Vadgaon and that

the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 14.07.1992.

Since no sale instance from the acquired village was available, the claimant

relied upon the sale instance at Exhibit 44 pertaining to village Tupdi. The

learned Reference Court relied upon the said sale instance and determined

the market value at the rate of Rs.1,25,000/- per Hectare by treating the

acquired land as dry land.


9.     The record, however, shows that the Special Land Acquisition Officer

has recorded the existence of a well on the acquired land and has also

awarded separate compensation towards the said well. Though the
                                                                 41-FA-678-2010.odt
                                         4

compensation awarded towards the well was very meager, its existence on

the acquired land is not in dispute. The existence of the well is a relevant

circumstance for determining the nature and utility of the acquired land. In

view of this material, the acquired land could not have been treated merely

as dry land. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present

case, the acquired land is, therefore, required to be treated as seasonally

irrigated land.


10.     The learned Reference Court has determined the market value of the

dry land at Rs.1,25,000/- per Hectare. Applying the multiplier of 1.5 for

treating the land as seasonally irrigated, the rate comes to Rs. 1,87,500/-

per Hectare.


11.     In view of the above discussion, the impugned Judgment and Award

requires modification to the aforesaid extent. Hence, the following order:


                                  ORDER

(i)     The First Appeal is partly allowed.


(ii)    The Judgment and Award dated 03.12.2009 passed by the learned

Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad, in Land Acquisition Reference

No.924 of 1998 (Old LAR No.501 of 1998) is modified to the extent.


(iii)   The market value of the acquired land admeasuring 5 Hectares from

Block No.32 is determined at the rate of Rs.1,87,500/- per Hectare, treating

the said land as seasonally irrigated.
                                                                    41-FA-678-2010.odt
                                          5

(iv)       The claimant shall be entitled to consequential statutory benefits on

the enhanced compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894.


(v)        The claimant shall be entitled to interest under Section 34 of the Act

in accordance with the Full Bench decision of this Court in State of

Maharashtra Vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457.


(vi)       The claimant shall pay the deficit Court fee, if any, on the enhanced

compensation.


(vii)      The claimant shall not be entitled to statutory benefits and interest

for the delayed period, if any, in accordance with law.


(viii)     Rest of the the Judgment and Award passed by the learned Reference

Court remains unaltered.


(ix)       Modified award be drawn accordingly.


(x)        Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.



                                               [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
                                                         JUDGE




S P Rane