Bombay High Court

THE STATE OF MAH AND ORSversusVISHVAMBHAR PARVATRAO BIRADAR

Disposal: Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
Bench: SANJAY A DESHMUKH

Holding

The principle of parity applies, requiring the claimants to receive compensation at the rates fixed in the earlier precedent, and the State's appeals to reduce compensation are dismissed.

Summary

The State of Maharashtra and the Acquiring Authority appealed to reduce compensation awarded to several claimants whose lands were acquired for a Gurnal Storage Tank project under a single notification of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The claimants appealed, contending that the compensation was inadequate and that the principle of parity required uniform rates for lands acquired under the same project. The Court examined whether the principle of parity applied, considering that all lands were acquired from the same village, for the same purpose, under the same award. Referring to a prior judgment (Laxman Manik Biradar v. State of Maharashtra, 2014) that fixed rates of Rs.7,508 per R for non‑irrigated and Rs.15,016 per R for irrigated land, the Court held that parity was applicable. Consequently, the State's appeals were dismissed, the claimants' appeals were allowed, and the award was partially modified to reflect the appropriate compensation rates, with directions for payment of statutory benefits but not interest for the period of delay.

Issues considered

Whether the principle of parity applies to claimants whose lands were acquired under the same notification and award.
Whether the State's appeal to reduce the awarded compensation is maintainable.
What compensation rates should apply to irrigated versus non‑irrigated land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Whether claimants are entitled to interest and other statutory benefits for the period of delay.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation
parity principle
irrigated land
non‑irrigated land
interest
statutory benefits
award modification

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:19184

1 902 FA.885.2014 ORS.odt

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

902 FIRST APPEAL NO. 885 OF 2014

JAYABAI DNYANOBA CHAPTE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 864 OF 2011

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
JAYABAI DNYANOBA CHAPTE

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 860 OF 2011

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
DHONDIRAM RAMRAO SURYAWANSHI

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 882 OF 2014

BABURAO MANIK CHAPTE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 857 OF 2011

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
VISHVAMBHAR PARVATRAO BIRADAR

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 881 OF 2014

DHONDIRAM RAMRAO SURYAWANSHI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
2 902 FA.885.2014 ORS.odt

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 884 OF 2014

VISHVAMBHAR PARVATRAO BIRADAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 883 OF 2014

KAMALBAI MANIK KUMBHAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 853 OF 2011

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
BABURAO MANIK CHAPTE

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 852 OF 2011

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
KAMALBAI MANIK KUMBHAR

…
Mr. H. B. Nandagavale, a/w Mr. Vijay G. Sakolkar, Advocate for Claimants.
Mr. S. B. Jadhav, AGP for State of Maharashtra & Acquiring Authority.
…

CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 28th April, 2026.

Per Court:

1 First Appeal Nos.852, 853, 857, 860 and 864 of 2011 have

been preferred by the State of Maharashtra and the Acquiring Authority
3 902 FA.885.2014 ORS.odt

for reducing the amount of compensation against the common

judgment and award dated 17th April, 2008, passed by the learned

Land Reference Court, District Latur, in LAR Nos.86, 88, 89, 92 and

252 of 2007, whereas First Appeal Nos.881, 882, 883, 884 and 885 of

2014 have been preferred by the claimants raising the grievance that

inadequate compensation has been awarded to them.

2 The claimants’ lands were acquired for the purpose of

construction of Gurnal Storage Tank, Gurnal, Taluka Deoni, District

Latur, as per the notification issued and published under Section 4 of

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the said Act”) dated 8 th

September, 2005.

3 The learned Advocate for the claimants pointed out the

judgment dated 8th April, 2026, passed by this Court in First Appeal

No.1011 of 2014 (Laxman Manik Biradar Vs. The State of Maharashtra

and another), by which this Court determined the compensation @

Rs.7,508/- per R for non-irrigated and @ Rs.15,016/- per R for

irrigated. He submitted that the acquired land of the claimant in First

Appeal No.881 of 2014 is irrigated and the acquired lands of the

claimants in the remaining first appeals are non-irrigated. He further

submitted that the claimants’ lands were acquired for one and the

same purpose, by one and same notification issued and published
4 902 FA.885.2014 ORS.odt

under Section 4 of the said Act, and by one and the same award

passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. He, therefore, prayed to allow

the appeals filed by the claimants on the principle of parity and to

dismiss the appeals filed by the State.

4 The learned AGP for the State and the Acquiring Authority

submitted that considering the quality and market value of the acquired

lands, the compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court is

exorbitant. He further strongly opposed the appeals filed by the

claimants and submitted that the principle of parity is not applicable to

their case, as urged by the learned Advocate for the claimants. He,

therefore, prayed to allow the appeals filed by the State by setting

aside the impugned judgment and award and to dismiss the appeals

filed by the claimants.

5 On perusal of the impugned judgment and award and the

judgment of this Court in First Appeal No.1011 of 2014 (supra), this

Court found that the claimants’ lands were acquired from one and the

same village, for one and the same project, by one and same

notification issued and published under Section 4 of the said Act, and

also by one and the same award passed by the Land Acquisition

Officer. Hence, principle of parity is applicable to the claimants’ case.

Therefore, the appeals filed by the State deserve to be dismissed. The
5 902 FA.885.2014 ORS.odt

appeals filed by the claimants deserve to be allowed. The impugned

judgment and award deserves to be partly set aside. Hence, the

following order:-

ORDER

I. The First Appeals filed by the State are dismissed.

II. The First Appeals filed by the Claimants are allowed.

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

a) The claimant in First Appeal No.881 of 2014 is
entitled to compensation @ Rs.15,016/- per R for
his irrigated land, and the claimants in the
remaining first appeals are entitled for
compensation @ Rs.7,508/- per R for their non-
irrigated lands, including the earlier compensation
awarded and received by them, along with all
statutory benefits like interest, component and
solatium etc., as per the Provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894.

b) Rest of the judgment and award is confirmed.

IV. It is clarified that the claimants are not entitled to the
interest and other statutory benefits for the period of
delay, if any, condoned by this Court.

V. The State and Acquiring Authority are directed to deposit
the enhanced amount of compensation along with all
6 902 FA.885.2014 ORS.odt

statutory benefits like interest, component and solatium
etc., in this Court within six months.

VI. If court fee is not sufficiently paid, the claimants shall
pay deficit court fee. On receiving the same, the
enhanced amount of compensation be paid to the
claimants.

VII. Award be drawn up accordingly.

VIII. Pending civil applications, if any, are disposed of.

IX. Record and Proceedings be sent back.

[ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ]
nga

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…