URMILA ANANDA PATILversusTHE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER-2, UPPER TAPI PROJECT, HATNUR, JALGAON AND ANR

2026:BHC-AUG:41237

                                                    (1)                  935-FA-943-2018


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                   935 FIRST APPEAL NO. 943 OF 2018

                                         Urmila Ananda Patil
                                              VERSUS
           The Special Land Acquisition Officer-2, Upper Tapi Project, Hatnur, Jalgaon &
                                                 Anr
                                                 …..
           Mr. Kshirsagar Hemraj P., Advocate for Appellant.
           Mr. A. V. Lavate, AGP for Respondent No.1.
           Mrs. Snehal P. Kulkarni, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
                                                 …..

                                                 CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.


                                                 DATE      : SEPTEMBER 1, 2026.

           PC :-

           1.        In pursuance to the last order passed by this Court, today, Sub-Division

           Officer, Waghur Dam Sub-Division No.1, Varadsim, Tal, Bhusawal, District

           Jalgaon, namely, Mr. Rahul Vijaysa Khanapure, is again present before this

           Court and an affidavit of unconditional apology has been tendered by the

           authority. The apology is accepted with a warning that henceforth the

           deponent shall not avoid any order passed by any Court in any proceedings.

           Failing which, he shall be subjected to personal costs and directions for

           departmental enquiry. So far as the contention of the appellant about settling

           claim of her sister, Nirmalabai Shriram Patil, in the Lok Adalat dated 14


           Kiran Kawre
                                       (2)                   935-FA-943-2018


September 2019 is concerned, it is spelt out in the affidavit that inadvertently

the land of Nirmalabai Shriram Patil was considered as bagayat land, and

mistakenly the claim was settled in the Lok Adalat. It is respectively deposed

in the affidavit that the land of Nirmala is in fact jirayat land and ought not to

have been compensated by treating it as bagayat land. It is further stated in

the affidavit that steps are in progress for getting the Lok Adalat award

modified/set aside. This Court does not comment on correctness of the said

settlement.

2.        Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 17 November 2009

passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division Jalgaon, in Land Acquisition

Reference No.837 of 2005, the appellant has approached this Court vide the

present First Appeal.

3.        The sum and substance of the case is that the appellant owned two

pieces of land, i.e., 1 Hectare and 51R in Gat No.152/2 at Chinchkheda Tq.

Jamner District, Jalgaon, and 1 Hectare 47R in Gat No.185/2 at village

Chinchkheda Tq. Jamner District, Jalgaon. After completion of the

proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, the award was prepared. Feeling

aggrieved thereby, the appellant initiated proceeding under Section 18 of the

Act in Land Acquisition Reference No.837 of 2005. It was the contention of

the claimants/appellant that the land comprised in Gat No.152/2 was a


Kiran Kawre
                                        (3)                  935-FA-943-2018


bagayat land, and hence compensation ought to be awarded by treating the

said land as bagayat land. Some sale instances were also relied upon by the

appellant as well as the other claimants in the connected matters, which have

arisen from the same vicinity. There was no dispute that the land comprising

185/2 was a bagayat land.

4.        After assessing entire evidence, the reference Court fixed the rate of

compensation at Rs.1,95,000/- per hectare for dry land/jirayat land comprised

in Gat No.152/2. For the land comprising 185/2, compensation was fixed at

Rs.3,90,000/- per hectare by treating it as bagayat land. As such,

enhancement was granted. The First Appeal is preferred by the claimants

disputing the findings of the Reference Court regarding the character of the

land comprised in Gat No.152/2. Besides that, objection is also raised

regarding the valuation of both types of the land. Notices were issued. And

accordingly the acquiring body has marked his presence.

5.        During the course of arguments, Mr. Kshirsagar, learned advocate for

the appellant apprised this Court that in a number of First Appeals arising out

of the same project i.e., Waghur Dam Project, after considering all aspects, this

Court fixed the rate for various types of land.

6.        Mr. Kshirsagar cites an order dated 2 November 2023 passed by this

Court in the lead First Appeal No.1115 of 2021 with connected appeals. He


Kiran Kawre
                                               (4)                   935-FA-943-2018


would invite my attention to the paragraph No.6 of the said order, wherein it

is observed thus:

              “6)   The learned counsel for the respondent acquiring body has placed

              on record a letter dated 01.11.2023 issued by the Executive Engineer,

              Waghur Dharan Vibhag, Jalgaon whereby instructions ar received that

              the amount of compensation be accepted at Rs.2,00,000/- for jirayat

              land, Rs.4,00,000/- for bagayat land and as far as trees are concerned

              80% of the valuation is accepted. The said letter is taken on record and

              same is marked as ‘X-1’ for identification purpose.”



7.        Mr. Kshirsagar thus submits that the jirayat land would fetch valuation

at Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare and the bagayat land would fetch valuation at

Rs.4,00,000/- per hectare. So far as trees are concerned, 80% of the valuation

is accepted. In the present appeals, Mr. Kshirsagar in the light of the cited

orders would fairly submit that sofar as the bagayat land comprised in Gat

No.185/2 is concerned, the appellant would be satisfied if the award is

escalated as per the cited orders i.e., @Rs. 4,00,000/- per hectare.

8.        Now, so far as other land in respect of which Mr. Kshirsagar is mainly

concerned i.e. land comprised in Gat No.152/2, admeasuring 1 Hectare and

51R is concerned he would point out to me the revenue record, i.e., 7/12

extracts. He would submits that undoubtedly there are some entries since

Kiran Kawre
                                        (5)                   935-FA-943-2018


1995 indicating that banana crops were cultivated in the said land for some

years. He fairly agrees that due to some natural reasons, the said crops could

not be continued, but it is a matter of fact that banana crops were sometimes

cultivated there. He would submits that not only this, but the award itself

would show that compensation was granted for some horticultural trees.

9.        With this argument, he would submit that what is required, is a quality

of land and not the crops which were being cultivated at the time of the

initiation of the land acquisition process. Thus, Mr. Kshirsagar prays to allow

the appeal by holding that the appellant is entitled to compensation            at

Rs.4,00,000/- per hectare for the land comprised in Gat No.152/2.

10.       Mrs. Kulkarni, learned advocate for the acquiring body, would rely on

the order cited by Mr. Kshirsagar. She would fairly agree that the rates for the

lands acquired for the same project have been fixed by this Court. So far as

the land in Gat No.185/2 is concerned, the appellant is indeed entitled to

compensation        at Rs.4,00,000/- per hectare. So far as the other land is

concerned, she would rely on the findings recorded by the trial Court i.e.

reference Court, and would request to pass an appropriate order.

11.       I have heard both the learned advocates for considerable length. Bulky

record is produced before me. Indeed, there are revenue entries indicating

that the appellant has, at some point of time taken crops like bananas in the


Kiran Kawre
                                         (6)                 935-FA-943-2018


subject matter land for some years. It is true that there was discontinuation

for some years.

12.       The Reference Court has also agreed that the land was used for

cultivating banana crops for some years, however there was discontinuation

thereafter. The piece of land acquired is hardly 1 Hectare and 51R. The

legislation governing compensation to landowners is a beneficial piece of

legislation. It cannot be lost sight of the fact that the subject matter land in

Gat No.152/2 had bagayat quality, since crops like bananas were being

cultivated for quite some year. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that a

crop of banana cannot be cultivated unless there is a supply of water.

13.       In my considered view, what needs to be seen is the potentials and the

character of the land. Being a beneficial piece of legislation, I deem it

appropriate to hold that the land comprised in Gat No.152/2 needs to be

considered as bagayat land for the purpose of awarding compensation to the

appellant.

                                       ORDER


              (i)    The First Appeal stand allowed.

              (ii)   The impugned award stands modified to the extent of

              holding land in Gat No.152/2 as Bagayat Land, and the

              appellants are entitled for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- per

Kiran Kawre
                                            (7)                      935-FA-943-2018


              hectare for both lands. And as far as trees are concerned, the

              claimants are entitled to receive compensation to the extent of

              80% of the amount of the valuation report.

              (iii)   The appellant shall be entitled to interest under Sections

              28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act in terms of law laid down

              by Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra

              Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari1.

              (iv)    The appellants shall not be entitled to interest and

              statutory benefit for delayed period.

              (v)     Save and except above, impugned judgment and award

              passed by Reference Court shall stand unaltered.

              (vi)    The   acquiring   body      shall    deposit   the   enhanced

              compensation in above terms in this Court within 6 months.

              Upon deposit, the appellants shall be entitled to withdraw the

              same with accrued interest subject to payment of deficit Court

              fees.

              (vii) The Record and Proceedings be sent back to Reference

              Court.

              (viii) Award be drawn up accordingly.

                                                          [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
1   2016 AIR (Bom.) 141

Kiran Kawre