Bombay High Court

DNYANESHWAR RAMRAO DESHMUKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Disposal: PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The entire area of land acquired is irrigated and the claimants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.26,500 per R, with interest and statutory benefits to be granted as per the Full Bench precedent.

Summary

The appellants challenged the award of compensation for lands acquired for the Dongargaon Barrage on the Manjra river, contending that the reference court incorrectly classified portions of the land as dry rather than irrigated. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had recorded the lands as irrigated, but the reference court relied on its own findings and awarded a lower rate for the allegedly dry portions. The appellants argued that no evidence was produced to prove any part of the land was dry, and therefore the entire area should attract the higher irrigated‑land rate of Rs.26,500 per R. The High Court examined the record, found no contrary evidence from the acquiring authority, and held that the whole acquired area is irrigated. It also corrected the award of interest and statutory benefits, directing that they be granted in accordance with the Full Bench decision in State of Maharashtra v. Kailas Shiva Rangari. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed, the compensation rate was increased for the entire land, and the interest entitlement was adjusted per the precedent.

Issues considered

Whether the lands acquired for the Dongargaon Barrage should be classified as irrigated or dry for the purpose of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.
Whether interest and other statutory benefits can be awarded from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in light of the Full Bench decision in State of Maharashtra v. Kailas Shiva Rangari.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act — s. 4

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation
irrigated land
dry land
interest
statutory benefits
Full Bench precedent
Maharashtra
Land Acquisition Act

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:32471

FA 694/17 & Ors.
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

13 FIRST APPEAL NO. 694 OF 2017

ABASAHEB GOVINDRAO DESHMUKH
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 695 OF 2017

DNYANESHWAR RAMRAO DESHMUKH
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
…
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 696 OF 2017

DNYANESHWAR RAMRAO DESHMUKH
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
…
Advocate for Appellants : Mr. V.D. Gunale
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. A.D. Wange
…
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
Dated : July 27, 2026
PER COURT :-

1. Admit.

2. As the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 2011, heard

finally with the consent of learned counsel for respective parties.

3. By these appeals, the appellants/original claimants challenge the

judgment and award dated 14.9.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge,

Senior Division, Nilanga in LAR Nos. 72, 71 and 75 of 2013, respectively.

4. The lands of the claimants admeasuring 1.14 H. from Gat No. 134,

2.11 H. from Gat No. 134 and 95 R. from Gat No. 131 situated at village

Shend, Tq. Nilanga, District Latur in respective references were acquired

for Dongargaon Barrage on Manjra river. Notification under section 4 of the
FA 694/17 & Ors.
2

Land Acquisition Act was published on 22.3.2011. The possession was

taken through private negotiations. The Special Land Acquisition Officer

(SLAO) has passed the award on 19.10.2012 and has granted

compensation at the rate of Rs.3,24,000/- per H. for Jirayat lands and Rs.

6,48,000/- per H. for Bagayat lands. Being aggrieved, the claimants

preferred the above references in which reference court awarded

compensation at the rate of Rs. 13,250/- per R. for dry lands i.e.

Rs.13,25,000/- per H. and Rs.26,500/- per R. for irrigated land i.e.

Rs.26,50,000/- per H. Being dissatisfied with the compensation granted by

the reference court, the present first appeals are filed by the original

claimants.

5. The only issue raised by the learned counsel for the

appellants/original claimants is that the reference court has wrongly held

that only the land admeasuring 1 H. out of land 2.11 H. from Gat No. 134

in LAR No. 71/2013, the land admeasuring 1 H. out of land 1.14 H. from

Gat No. 134 in LAR No. 72/2013 and the land admeasuring 80 R. out of

land 95 R. from Gat No. 131 in LAR No. 75/2013 are irrigated lands. He

submits that these findings were recorded by the reference court only on

the ground that the SLAO has recorded those findings. The learned counsel

submits that infact the total area of the lands acquired under the above

references is irrigated and the reference court ought to have granted

compensation by holding that the entire lands involved in references are

irrigated and granted compensation accordingly.

6. The learned AGP strongly opposed the prayer of the

appellants/claimants and submits that the reference court has recorded the

findings correctly on the basis of revenue record and no any evidence is
FA 694/17 & Ors.
3

produced by the claimants before the reference court to prove that entire

area of the lands under acquisition is irrigated. He further submits that the

reference court has granted interest and other statutory benefits from the

date of notification under section 4 of the Act and the same is contrary to

the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of

Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (4) Mh.L.J. 457. He therefore

prays to dismiss the appeals.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and

having gone through the record and proceedings it appears that the

reference court has held that the land admeasuring 1 H. out of land 2.11

H. from Gat No. 134 in LAR No. 71/2013, the land admeasuring 1 H. out of

land 1.14 H. from Gat No. 134 in LAR No. 72/2013 and the land

admeasuring 80 R. out of land 95 R. from Gat No. 131 in LAR No. 75/2013

are irrigated lands and remaining lands are dry lands. The reference court

has recorded these findings on the basis of findings recorded by the SLAO.

However, on perusal of the record, it is seen that the acquiring body has

not led any contra evidence to prove that the remaining lands were dry

lands. Hence, I hold that entire area of acquired land is irrigated and and

claimants are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs.26,500/-

per R. for entire acquired lands.

8. The reference court has granted interest and other statutory benefits

from the date of notification under section 4 of the Act which is contrary in

view of the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of

Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari (supra). Hence, the following order.

ORDER

(I) The appeals are partly allowed.
FA 694/17 & Ors.
4

(II) The claimants in the respective appeals are entitled to receive

compensation at the rate of Rs.26,500/- per R. for entire acquired lands.

(II) The claimants shall be entitled to interest and other statutory

benefits strictly in accordance with the law laid down by the Full Bench of

this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari

(supra).

(III) The impugned judgment and award is modified accordingly.

(IV) The claimants shall pay deficit court fee, if any, on the enhanced

amount.

(V) Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )

ssc/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…