SAHEBRAO BHIMRAO NALAWADEversusTHE STATE OF MAH AND ANR

2026:BHC-AUG:28138

                                                                           FA 125/14 & Anr.
                                                     1

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                   5 FIRST APPEAL NO. 125 OF 2014
                                                WITH
                         CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8547 OF 2024 IN FA/125/2014
                                                WITH
                                    FIRST APPEAL NO. 899 OF 2012

                     THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SINA KOLEGAON PROJECT DIVISION,
                                               PARANDA
                                                VERSUS
                               THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
                                                   ...
                             Advocate for acquiring body : Mr. Gulab Rajale
                              AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. A.A.A. Khan
                               Advocate for claimant : Mr. A.R. Devakate
                                                   ...

                                    CORAM        : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                    Dated        : July 07, 2026

              PER COURT :-

              1.      Admit. Taken for final hearing. As the acquisition proceeding is of the

              year 1994, heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for

              respective parties.

              2.      First Appeal No. 125/2014 is filed by the acquiring body and First

              Appeal No. 899/2012 is filed by the claimant. Both are arising out of

              judgment and award dated 4.2.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge,

              Senior Division, Paranda in LAR No. 392/1998. The acquiring body

              challenges the judgment on the ground that excessive enhancement of

              compensation has been granted and the claimant challenges on the ground

              that inadequate compensation has been granted.

              3.      Claimant is owner and possessor of the land Survey No. 28 to the

              extent of 3 H.59 R. and Survey No. 29 to the extent of 1 H. 79 R. situated

              at village Roas, Tq. Paranda, District Osmanabad. The State has acquired
                                                             FA 125/14 & Anr.
                                         2

the lands of the claimant for the purpose of construction of Sina-Kolegaon

Project at village Domgaon, Tq. Paranda, Dist. Osmanabad. Notification

under sections 4 and 6 were issued on 13.10.1994 and 11.5.1995,

respectively. The possession of the lands of the claimants were taken on

15.6.1995 and 26.12.1995. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has

awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.22000/- per H. and Rs. 25,500/-

per H. for respective lands. Claimant accepted the amount under protest

and preferred the above reference. The learned reference court has

granted compensation at the rate of Rs.42,000/- per Acre for the acquired

lands of the claimant. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the

reference court, both acquiring body and original claimant preferred the

present appeals, respectively.

4.    Mr. Gulab Rajale, learned counsel for the acquiring body submits

that the reference court has granted excessive compensation for the fruit

bearing   trees.   He   submits   that   the   SLAO   has   granted   adequate

compensation considering the age and future yield of the trees, however,

the same was wrongly enhanced by the reference court excessively. As

regards sale instance, he submits that the sale instance relied upon by the

claimant was not from the same village and from the different village and

therefore that cannot be relied upon by the reference court as comparable

sale instance. The learned counsel for the acquiring body therefore submits

that the reference court has committed error while granting compensation

and interest and statutory benefits are granted from the date of

notification. Therefore he prays to allow the appeal filed by acquiring body.

5.    Per contra, Mr. A.R. Devkate, learned counsel for the claimant

submits that as far as sale instance is concerned, though the sale instance
                                                               FA 125/14 & Anr.
                                      3

is from different village, but the distance between the acquired land and

the land mentioned in the sale instance was within an half kilometer. As far

as valuation report is concerned, he submits that private valuer has

submitted the valuation report after visiting the acquired lands and he has

mentioned the number of Jujubee and sandal trees etc. He submits that

the   reference   court   has   wrongly   excluded   40   R.   land   from   the

compensation which is contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in

the case of Shri Ambya Kalya Mhatre (d) through legal heirs and Ors. vs.

The State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2011 SC (Supp) 625. He submits

that infact the claimant has proved that the acquired lands are irrigated

land and having source of water. He submits that as per 7/12 extracts and

report of SLAO, there was source of water and the lands were irrigated

through the well, but without considering this, the reference court has

treated the acquired lands as seasonally irrigated lands and granted

compensation at the rate of Rs.42,000/- per Acre by excluding 41 R. land.

He submits that the reference court has considered the number of trees on

the basis of E statement and not as per the valuer’s report and therefore,

the reference court has committed error and not granted compensation as

per valuer’s report. He therefore prays to enhance the compensation.

6.     Having heard the respective parties and having gone through the

copy of the impugned judgment and award of the reference court and the

record produced before me, it appears that on the basis of E statement the

reference court has awarded compensation of Rs.1,84,700/- for 24 sandal

trees and 25 Jujubee trees considering the fruit bearing capacity and age

of the trees and enhanced the amount of compensation and therefore, to

that extent I am not inclined to entertain the contentions raised by the
                                                              FA 125/14 & Anr.
                                       4

claimant and I hold that the compensation granted by the reference court

in respect of trees is proper.

7.     As regards the acquired lands are concerned, Mr. Devkate for

claimant has raised the contention that the reference court has committed

error while not granting compensation for 40 R. land. The learned counsel

has invited my attention to the valuer’s report. After going through the

valuer’s report, I find that it is specifically stated in it that the trees were

planted by the claimant on the bandh and it is not the case of the acquiring

body that the trees were not planted by the claimant on the bandh.

Considering that the trees were planted by the claimant on that 40 R. land,

I am inclined to accept the contention of the claimant that the reference

court has wrongly deducted 40 R. land while granting compensation.

8.     As regards the findings recorded by the reference court for grant of

seasonally irrigated lands is concerned, I have gone through the evidence

led by the claimant, copy of the award of the SLAO in which it is

specifically stated that the claimant was having source of water. Even it

was brought to my notice that evidence was led to that effect and it was

brought on the record that there was pipeline and acquired lands were

cultivated by laying pipeline. Therefore, I find that the acquired lands are

fully irrigated lands. Therefore, I hold that the claimant is entitled to

receive compensation amount at the rate of Rs.56,000/- per Acre for his

total acquired lands. In view of the above, I pass the following order :-

                                  ORDER

(I)    The appeals filed by the claimant and acquiring body are partly

allowed.

(II)   The claimants are entitled to receive the compensation at the rate of
                                                            FA 125/14 & Anr.
                                        5

Rs.56,000/- per Acre for irrigated lands.

(III)   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

reported in 2016 (4) Mh.L.J. 457.

(IV)    Clause (4) and (5) of the operative part of the impugned judgment

and order of the reference court is modified accordingly.

(V)     Rest of the award is maintained.

(VI)    Civil Applications, if any, stands disposed of.



                                            ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )

ssc/