Bombay High Court
DHONDIRAM RAMRAO SURYAWANSHIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
- Bench
- SANJAY A DESHMUKH
Holding
Because the acquired lands were from the same village, acquired for the same project under the same Section 4 notification and the same award, the principle of parity applies, entitling the claimants to compensation at Rs.7,508 per R for non-irrigated land and Rs.15,016 per R for irrigated land.
Summary
These cross-appeals arose from a common judgment and award dated 17 April 2008 of the Land Reference Court, Latur, in LAR Nos. 86, 88, 89, 92 and 252 of 2007. The claimants' lands in Gurnal, Taluka Deoni, District Latur, were acquired for construction of the Gurnal Storage Tank under a Section 4 notification dated 8 September 2005 issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The State and Acquiring Authority filed appeals seeking reduction of compensation, while the claimants filed appeals seeking enhancement. The claimants relied on this Court's judgment dated 8 April 2026 in First Appeal No. 1011 of 2014 (Laxman Manik Biradar v. State of Maharashtra), which fixed compensation at Rs.7,508 per R for non-irrigated land and Rs.15,016 per R for irrigated land. The Court found that the acquired lands were from the same village, for the same project, under the same Section 4 notification and the same award, so the principle of parity applied. It dismissed the State's appeals and allowed the claimants' appeals, modifying the award to grant the higher rates with statutory benefits, but denying interest for any condoned delay. The State was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within six months.
Issues considered
- Whether the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation on the principle of parity with the judgment in First Appeal No.1011 of 2014?
- Whether the compensation awarded by the Reference Court was exorbitant and liable to be reduced?
- Whether the principle of parity applies when lands are acquired from the same village for the same project under the same Section 4 notification and the same award?
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4
Subjects
- Land acquisition
- Compensation
- Principle of parity
- Irrigated land
- Non-irrigated land
- Section 4 notification
- Statutory benefits
- Solatium
- Interest
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:19178
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
Checking your session…