Bombay High Court

BHAGWANRAO DAGDUBA NIRVAL DIED THR LRS INDUBAI AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Disposal: Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The Court allowed the appeal partly, fixing the compensation rate at Rs. 5,500 per are for the irrigated land, upholding the tree compensation, and granting interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act from the date of the final award.

Summary

The appellants challenged the award of Rs. 2,400 per are for land acquired for the Nimna Dudhna Project, contending that the land is irrigated and should attract Rs. 5,500 per are with escalation. They also disputed the compensation awarded for various fruit‑bearing trees, arguing that the private valuer's higher rates should be applied. The respondents argued that the lower rate was appropriate for dry land and that the reference court’s valuation of trees was reasonable. The High Court examined the classification of the land, the applicability of escalation, and the weight to be given to the private valuer’s report, rejecting the claim for 80% of the valuer’s figures. The Court held that the land is irrigated, awarded Rs. 5,500 per are with a 10% escalation, upheld the tree compensation as awarded, and allowed interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act from the date of the final award. The appeal was allowed in part and the rest of the impugned judgment was left unchanged.

Issues considered

Whether the acquired land should be classified as irrigated land and compensated at Rs. 5,500 per are instead of Rs. 2,400 per are
Whether escalation benefits are applicable to the compensation rate
Whether the private valuer's valuation for fruit‑bearing trees should be accepted, wholly or partially
Whether interest and statutory benefits for the delayed period are payable under the Land Acquisition Act

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 28, 34, 4

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation rate
irrigated land
escalation
tree valuation
private valuer
interest under L.A. Act

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:27361
1 of 6 901-FA.770.2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

901 FIRST APPEAL NO. 770 OF 2017

BHAGWANRAO DAGDUBA NIRVAL DIED THR LRS INDUBAI AND ORS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...
Mr. Ajeet B. Kale, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Suresh Mundhe, Advocate for Respondent No.3.
...

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 2nd JULY, 2026

P.C.:-

1. Heard both sides finally with their consent.

2. The Appellants are taking exception to the judgment and

award dated 12.05.2015 passed by the Reference Court in L.A.R. No.

1094/2010. They are aggrieved by rate of Rs. 2400/- per Are awarded

to their acquired lands and the compensation for the fruit bearing

trees.

3. The learned counsel Mr. Kale appearing for the Appellants

submits that the lands are treated to be irrigated land but only rate of

Rs. 2400/- per Are is awarded ,which should be Rs.5500/- per Are. It

is submitted that the Appellants are entitled to the benefit of

escalation. It is further submitted that the Reference Court arbitrarily

awarded reduced compensation to the trees. The valuation report
2 of 6 901-FA.770.2017

should have been accepted in awarding the compensation. The

number of trees have not been disputed by the Respondents. To make

out a case of parity, reliance is placed on number of judgments.

4. The Respondents would support impugned judgment and

award. It is submitted that in couple of matters, in which the lands

from village Nansi Tq. Mantha, District Jalna, were acquired. The

matters had reached High Court and rate of Rs. 2400/- per Are was

accepted for dry land. It is further submitted that the Reference Court

by a reasoned order arrived at quantum for compensation to the trees,

which cannot be faulted. The report of the Private Valuer cannot be

accepted.

5. The lands from village Nansi Tq. Mantha have been acquired

for Nimna Dudhna Project. The notification under Section 4 was

issued in both the appeals on 20.09.1997. Following are the material

particulars:

Sr. First L.A.R. Gat Total U/sec.4 U/ SLAO rate per R Reference Type of land
No Appeal No. No. area notification sec.11 as per Award Court and area.
. No. date Award enhanced
date rate per R
1) 770/20 1094/ 11 4H 20.09.1997 20.12.2 Rs.626/ per R Rs. 2400/- 1H 45R for
17 2010 34R 001 for Jirayat land. per R for Seasonally
irrigated. irrigated land.
Rs.939/- per R
for Seasonally Rs. 1200/- 87R
irrigated land. per R for irrigated land
pot kharab
Rs.1252/- per R 2H 2R DAV land.
for irrigated
land.

6. In this appeal, the classification of the lands has not been
3 of 6 901-FA.770.2017

challenged. In some part of the land, trees are found. Separate

compensation is awarded to the land and the trees. In the present

appeal, 1H 45R land is treated as seasonally irrigated land, 87R land is

treated as irrigated land and 2H 2R land is treated as DAV land. The

Reference Court enhanced the compensation for the lands to the tune

of Rs. 2400/- per Are.

7. Following is the status of the trees and the rate :

Sr. Gat Kind of No. of SLO per Valuation report Reference Court
No. No. trees trees trees per tree Exh.32-C granted per tree.
1 11 Mango 3 116 32112 6186
2 11 35 357 9943 1512
11 30 309 9943 1512
Bor
11 130 264 9943 1512
3 11 Mosambi 259 1141 26240 4701
4 11 Guava 11 1080 9558 4331
5 11 Orange 32 777 8298 3562
6 11 Sagwan 481 198 17850 198

8. Number of trees have not been disputed by the Respondents.

The private valuer was examined and his reports were produced at

Exh.32. The Reference Court conducted independent analysis and

arrived at the valuation for the trees, which is lesser than the report of

valuations. In the present appeal, the Appellant are claiming rate of

Rs.1,95,000/- for bor trees, Rs.3,000/- for mango trees, Rs.27,500/- for

guava trees, Rs.7,77,000/- for Mosambi trees, Rs.2,000/- for lemon

trees, Rs.80,000/- for orange trees and Rs.2,50,000/- for sagwan trees.
4 of 6 901-FA.770.2017

Whereas the Reference Court granted total Rs.17,88,152/- for all trees.

9. I have gone through the impugned judgment. The report of

the private valuer is taken into consideration by the Reference Court.

The said report is not altogether discarded. The Appellants do not

have objection for the rate arrived at to the extent of few of the trees.

The grievance is in respect of few trees as mentioned above. I do not

find any arbitrariness in it. In present matter the report of the private

valuer can neither be accepted as they are nor can they be discarded.

The Reference Court has arrived at plausible and reasonable findings

for awarding compensation for the trees. No case is made out for

granting 80% of the valuation of the private valuers.

10. My attention is adverted to the judgment of the Supreme

Court in the matter of Chinda Fakira Patil (D) through L.Rs. Vs. The

Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon; (2011) 10 SCC 787. I have

gone through paragraph no. 14 of the judgment. That cannot be said to

binding precedent for accepting report of private valuer to 80%. In the

matter at hand reasons are assigned by the Reference Court as to why

valuers’ report cannot be accepted as they are. This judgment will not

enure to the benefit of the Appellants.

11. Similarly, in case of Narayan Yashwanta Kapse Vs. The State

of Maharashtra and others; 2021(2) BomCR 129 , the coordinate bench

in those particular facts and circumstances of the case accepted 80% of
5 of 6 901-FA.770.2017

the valuation made by the private valuer. The judgment will not help

the Appellants.

12. This Court has been taking consistent view in awarding rate

of Rs. 2500/- per Are for dry land, in case, land is affected by Nimna

Dudhna Project. Relying upon various previous judgments, this Court

upheld the said rate as well as benefits of escalation while deciding

group of appeals in First Appeal No 1778/2024 Pralhad Annasaheb

Nirwal Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others and other connected

matters. I propose to adopt the same course. The Appellants are

entitled to receive escalation for one year at the rate of 10% per

annum. The rate for dry land would come to Rs. 2500/- + 250/- = Rs.

2750/- per Are. Undisputedly, the lands are irrigated lands and

therefore the Appellants shall receive rate of Rs. 5500/- per Are.

13. The submissions of the Respondents that in Lok Adalat rate

of Rs. 2400/- per Are was fixed and same would be awarded, has no

merit. That was a rate amicably settled between the parties in those

appeals. In the present matter, the Appellants on merits have made out

a case for receiving Rs. 5500/- per Are for their irrigated lands. Hence,

I pass following order.

ORDER

(i) First Appeal is allowed partly.

(ii) The Appellants shall receive the compensation at the
6 of 6 901-FA.770.2017

rate of Rs. 5500/- per Are for the acquired land.

(iii) The compensation awarded for the trees is upheld.

(iv) The Appellants shall not be entitled to claim interest and
statutory benefits for the delayed period.

(v) The Appellants shall be entitled to interest U/Sec. 28
and 34 of the L. A. Act is payable from the date of final
award as per the judgment in the matter of State of
Maharashtra Vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari reported in
2016(4) All MR 513.

(vi) Save and except above, rest of the impugned judgment
and award shall stand unaltered.

(vii) The Appellants shall pay deficit court-fees.

(viii) Award be drawn accordingly.

(ix) Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned
Court.

(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

Tauseef

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…