Bombay High Court

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CIVIL CONSTRUCTION DIV. MSEB PARLI WAIJINATH DIST. BEEDversusMADHAVRAO DATTALTRAYA WADGAONKAR and ANR

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

Holding

The reference court’s enhancement of compensation to Rs 375 per R is upheld, but interest and statutory benefits must be awarded as per State of Maharashtra v. Kailas Shiva Rangari.

Summary

The State acquired land for the ash‑bund of the Parli‑Vaijnath Thermal Power Station under a Section 4 notification of the Special Land Acquisition Act. Original compensation of Rs 50‑70 per R was paid, which the claimants accepted under protest and challenged through Land Acquisition References (LARs). The reference court enhanced compensation to Rs 375 per R, relying on comparable sale instances and a prior award of Rs 400 per R for similar land in LAR 62/1991. The acquiring body appealed, arguing the enhancement was speculative and that interest and statutory benefits should not be granted. The High Court upheld the enhanced compensation but partially allowed the appeal by directing that interest and other statutory benefits be awarded in accordance with the Full Bench decision in State of Maharashtra v. Kailas Shiva Rangari, while leaving the rest of the award unchanged.

Issues considered

Whether the reference court erred in enhancing compensation to Rs 375 per R based on comparable sale instances and a prior award.
Whether interest and other statutory benefits are payable to the claimants despite the reference court’s award.
Whether different Section 4 notifications affect the quantum of compensation for lands acquired for the same project.

Legislation cited

Special Land Acquisition Act — s. 4

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation enhancement
interest entitlement
statutory benefits
Special Land Acquisition Act
comparative sale analysis
thermal power project

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:27624

FA 9/15 & Anr.
1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

46 FIRST APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2005

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER CIVIL CONSTRUCTION DIV. MSEB PARLI
WAIJINATH DIST. BEED
VERSUS
MADHAVRAO DATTALTRAYA WADGAONKAR AND ANR
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. R.A. Tambe
AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. R.B. Dhaware
Advocate for Respondent 1 : Ms. Tanvi S. Pujari h/f. Mr. P.V. Barde
...

WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 10 OF 2005

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

PER COURT :-

1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. Aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 31.8.2004 passed by

the learned Ist Adhoc Additional District Judge, Ambajogai in LAR Nos.

456/1989 and 457/1989, the acquiring body preferred the present

appeals.

3. The lands of the claimants were acquired by the State for ash bund

of Thermal Power Station, Parli Vaijnath. Notification under section 4 was

published on 25.3.1982. The possession of the acquired lands was taken

by the State and the award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Act
FA 9/15 & Anr.
2

(SLAO) on 30.5.1986 in LAR Nos. 457/1989 and on 2.7.1984 in LAR No.

456/1989. The SLAO has granted compensation at the rate of Rs.50/- per

R. and Rs. 70/- per R. Claimants accepted the amount under protest and

preferred the above references. The reference court enhanced the

compensation amount at the rate of Rs.375/- per R. Being aggrieved by

the judgment and award of the reference court, the acquiring body has

preferred present appeals.

4. Mr. Rahul Tamble, learned counsel for the appellant/acquiring body

submits that though reference court has recorded finding that the lands

which were acquired are having potential of irrigated land, but no evidence

was led by the claimants. He submits that the learned reference court has

made observations about the earlier LAR No. 62/1991, but that is not from

the same project. He submits that in respect of present matters, the

reference court ought to have decided on it’s own merits. He submits that

only on the guess work, the reference court has enhanced the

compensation. He submits that infact from the same project, other

references were filed in which enhanced compensation was granted, but it

was up to the four times and therefore, in Lok Adalat those appeals were

disposed of. He therefore prays to allow the appeals.

5. Ms. Tanvi S. Pujari h/f. Mr. P.V. Barde, learned counsel appears for

respondents/claimants and supports the order passed by the reference

court by contending that as the land of the mother of the claimants from

Gat No. 86 came to be acquired and her mother filed LAR No. 62/1991 in

which reference court granted compensation at the rate of Rs.400/- per R.

She submits that considering the land in LAR No. 62/1991 and the land in

the present matter which is acquired, they are having of same quality. She
FA 9/15 & Anr.
3

further relied on the sale instance below Exh. 33, 34 and 36 and submits

that those sale instances were prior to section 4 notification and therefore,

she is entitled to receive 10% escalation every year from the date of

registered sale deed and therefore, she prays to dismiss the appeals.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going

through the impugned judgment and award passed by the reference court,

it appears that there is no dispute about the fact that land bearing Gat No.

86 belongs to mother of the claimant which is subject matter of LAR No.

62/1991 wherein the reference court has awarded compensation at the

rate of Rs.400/- per R. Even though the notifications were different, but

the lands were acquired for the same project and considering the location

of the lands and considering that the lands were acquired for the same

project though under different notifications and considering the

comparable sale instances below Exhs. 33, 34 and 36 which were prior to

section 4 notification, I find that the learned reference court has rightly

enhanced the compensation by considering the comparable sale instances

which were prior to section 4 notification. The reference court has

enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 375/- per R. from Rs. 50/- and

Rs.70/-. The said amount is very meager. Considering the above, I do not

find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by the

learned reference court.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the reference

court has granted interest and other statutory benefits from the date of

taking the possession of the acquired lands and the same is contrary in

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

Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (4) Mh.L.J. 457.
FA 9/15 & Anr.
4

8. Considering the above, I pass the following order.

ORDER

(I) The appeals are partly allowed.

(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.

(III) Rest of the award is maintained.

(IV) Award is modified accordingly.

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

( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )

ssc/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…