Bombay High Court
JALINDAR TATYABA DESHMUKH AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
- Bench
- SANJAY A DESHMUKH
Holding
The Court held that the market‑value compensation for the irrigated lands was inadequately assessed and that the claimants are entitled to double the previously awarded rate of Rs.2,082 per are.
Summary
The appellants, a group of agricultural landowners in Beed district, appealed against a Land Reference Court judgment that awarded them compensation for lands acquired for the Gunwati Brihat Laghu Sinchan Project. They contended that the compensation was far below market value, especially because their lands were irrigated and contained fruit‑bearing trees, and argued that the sale exemplar and valuation evidence were improperly disregarded. The State argued that the compensation, including a 15% escalation based on an earlier reference, was reasonable and that the valuation of trees was correctly rejected. The High Court examined whether the awarded amount reflected the true market value of irrigated land and held that the lower rate was inappropriate. It modified the award, directing that the appellants receive double the earlier rate, i.e., Rs.2,082 per are, together with statutory benefits, but denied interest for delay. Consequently, the appeals were partly allowed and the original judgment partially set aside.
Issues considered
- Whether the compensation awarded by the Land Reference Court reflects the market value of the acquired irrigated lands.
- Whether the claimants are entitled to a double rate of compensation for irrigated land.
- Whether compensation for fruit‑bearing trees should be awarded.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- market value
- irrigated land
- valuation
- interest
- solatium
- reference court
- partial allowance
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:14244
1 901-FA-517-12.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 517 OF 2012
Prabhakar s/o. Dagadu Salgar,
Age 55 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o. Mungi, Taluka Dharur,
District Beed .. Appellant
(Original Claimant)
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through District Collector, Beed
2. The Executive Engineer,
Beed Minor Irrigation Division,
Headquarter at Ambajogai,
District Beed
3. Namdev s/o. Dagadu Salgar,
Age 50 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o. Mungi, Taluka Dharur,
District Beed .. Respondents
Mr. Shrikrashna B. Solanke, Advocate for Appellant;
Mr. S. G. Sangle, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1;
Mr. Bhagwat A. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent No.2;
Mr. P. D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Respondent No.3
…
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1297 OF 2012
Namdeo s/o. Dagdu Salgar,
Age 52 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o. Sukali, now Taluka Dharur,
District Beed .. Appellants
(Original Claimants)
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through District Collector, Beed
2. The Executive Engineer,
Beed Minor Irrigation Division,
Headquarter at Ambajogai,
District Beed
2 901-FA-517-12.odt
3. Prabhakar s/o. Dagdu Salgar,
Age 57 years, Occu. Agril,
R/o. Sukali, now Taluka Dharur,
District Beed .. Respondents
Mr. Prashant D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Appellants;
Mr. S. G. Sangle, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1;
Mr. Bhagwat A. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent No.2;
Mr. Shrikrashna B. Solanke, Advocate for Respondent No.3
...
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1298 OF 2012
1. Bhagwat s/o. Bapurao Lavhale,
Age 55 years, Occu. Agril.,
2. Ramnarayan s/o. Bapurao Lavhale,
Age 52 years, Occu. Agril.,
3. Parmeshwar s/o. Bapurao Lavhale,
Age 48 years, Occu. Agril.,
4. Shivaji s/o. Bapurao Lavhale,
Age 44 years, Occu. Agril.,
All R/o. Sukali, Now Taluka Dharur,
District Beed .. Appellants
(Original Claimants)
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through District Collector, Beed
2. The Executive Engineer,
Beed Minor Irrigation Division,
Headquarter at Ambajogai,
District Beed .. Respondents
Mr. Prashant D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Appellants;
Mr. S. G. Sangle, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1;
Mr. Bhagwat A. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent No.2
…
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3256 OF 2015
Narayan s/o. Bajirao Salgar,
Age 65 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o. Mungi, Taluka Dharur,
District Beed .. Appellants
3 901-FA-517-12.odt
(Original Claimant)
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Beed
2. The Executive Engineer,
Beed Minor Irrigation Division,
Headquarter, Ambajogai,
District Beed .. Respondents
Mr. Shrikrashna B. Solanke, Advocate for Appellant;
Mr. S. G. Sangle, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1;
Mr. Bhagwat A. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent No.2
…
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3678 OF 2011
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8701 OF 2024 IN FA/3678/2011
Dattu s/o. Namdeo Galande,
Age 68 years, Occu. Agril.,
Died, L.Rs.:-
1. Anirudra s/o. Dattu Galande,
Age 50 yeas, Occu. Agril.,
2 Kavinarayan s/o. Dattu Galande,
Age 48 years, Occu. Agril.,
3. Limbubai wd/o. Dattu Galande,
Age 73 years, Occu. Agril.,
All R/o. Sukali, Taluka Majalgaon,
District Beed .. Appellants
(Original Claimants)
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Beed
2. The Executive Engineer,
Beed Minor Irrigation Division,
Headquarter Ambajogai,
District Beed .. Respondents
Mr. Prashant D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Appellants;
Mr. S. G. Sangle, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1;
Mr. Bhagwat A. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent No.2
…
AND
4 901-FA-517-12.odt
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3679 OF 2011
1. Balbhim s/o. Khanderao Galande,
Age 55 years, Occu. Agril.,
2. Arjun s/o. Khanderao Galande,
Age 50 years, Occu. Agril.,
Both R/o. Sukali, Now Taluka Dharur,
District Beed .. Appellants
(Original Claimants)
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Beed
2. The Executive Engineer,
Beed Minor Irrigation Division,
Headquarter Ambajogai,
District Beed .. Respondents
Mr. Prashant D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Appellants;
Mr. S. G. Sangle, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1;
Mr. Bhagwat A. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent No.2
…
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 968 OF 2014
1. Jalinder s/o. Tatyaba Deshmukh,
Age 55 years, Occu. Agril,
2. Machindra s/o. Tatyaba Deshmukh,
Age 60 years, Occu. Agril.,
3. Rohidas s/o. Tatyaba Deshmukh,
Age 50 years, Occu. Agril.,
4. Baban s/o. Shivaji Solanke,
Age 45 years, Occu. Agril.,
5. Sau. Rajani w/o. Haribhau Deshmukh,
Age 50 years, Occu. Household,
All R/o. Sukali, Taluka Dharur,
At present Parli Vaijnath,
Taluka Parali, District Beed .. Appellants
(Original Claimants)
Versus
5 901-FA-517-12.odt
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through the Collector, Beed
2. The Executive Engineer,
Beed Minor Irrigation Division,
Headquarter Ambajogai,
District Beed .. Respondents
Mr. Prashant D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Appellants;
Mr. S. G. Sangle, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1;
Mr. Bhagwat A. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent No.2
…
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1149 OF 2013
1. Prakash s/o. Raosaheb Saundankar,
Age 45 years, Occu. Agril.,
2. Maroti s/o. Raosaheb Saundankar,
Age 42 years, Occu. Agril.,
3. Anjanabai d/o. Raosaheb Saundankar,
Age 40 years, Occu. Household,
Through Power of Attorney
Gangadhar s/o. Bhagwanrao Jagtap,
Age 50 years, Occu. Business,
R/o. N-2, Near Community Hall,
Aurangabad .. Appellants
(Original Claimants)
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through District Collector, Beed
2. The Executive Engineer,
Beed Minor Irrigation Division,
Headquarter Ambajogai,
District Beed .. Respondents
Mr. Prashant D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for Appellants;
Mr. S. G. Sangle, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1;
Mr. Bhagwat A. Shinde, Advocate for Respondent No.2
…
CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 24-03-2026
6 901-FA-517-12.odt
PER COURT:-
1. These appeals are preferred by the appellant/claimants
against the common judgment and award delivered by the learned
Land Reference Court, Majalgaon, District Beed, in LAR No.668,
671, 675, 682, 686, 687, 698, 711 and 748 of 2004, dated
31.01.2011, and partly allowed the Land Acquisition References by
enhancing compensation to the claimants for their acquired lands
and trees therein, arised out of one and the same Award of the
Special Land Acquisition Officer, dated 11.08.1994. The claimants’
lands as shown in the following chart were acquired for the
purpose of Tali, Channel /Road/Submergence of Gunwati Brihat
Laghu Sinchan Project at Sukali/Mungi/Tapowan/Khamgaon, Taluka
Majalgaon (now, Dharur), District Beed:-
First Appeal LAR Acquired Area (H.R) Compensation awarded per R by
Gat LAO Reference Court
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
517/2012 13/20 2 H. 66 R Rs.235/-
and 20/38 1 H. 26 R Rs.250/-
1297/2012 Rs.1041/-
748/2004 12/16 1 H. 71 R. Rs.250/-
12/17 55 R. Rs.250/-
12/15 4 R. Rs.200/-
1298/2012 711/2004 9/10-45 6H 54R Rs.240/- Rs.1041/-
(8 H 81 R.) 2 H. 29R Rs.74.83/-
3256/2015 10/2008 32/58 1 H 80 R Rs.235/- Rs.1080/-
40/168 1 H. 71 R Rs. 240/-
62/185 10 R Rs. 265/-
3678/2011 687/2004 Rs.1041/-
61/172 23 R. Rs. 265/-
60/169 2R Rs. 220/-
7 901-FA-517-12.odt
60/166 1 H 47 R
61/184 3R
Rs. 240/- to
3679/2011 698/2004 60/171 55 R Rs.1041/-
Rs.260/-
61/171 32 R
60/169 1R
7/44 4 H 25 R Rs. 240/- to
968/2014 668/2004 (6 H 54 R) Rs.1041/-
2 H 29 R Rs.260/-
1149/2013 675/2004 30/102 4 H 79 R Rs.240/- Rs.1041/-
2. The learned Advocates for the appellants pointed out the
pleadings, the evidence, the grounds of objections in the appeals
and the reasons and findings in the impugned judgment and
submitted that the learned Reference Court has not determined
the compensation as per the market value of the acquired lands
and for fruit bearing trees. It has awarded a meager amount of
compensation. They further submitted that sale exemplar at
Exhibit-68 was not properly appreciated and the amount of
compensation was determined on the basis of a decision in the
Land Acquisition Reference without justification.
3. The learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the
the acquired lands are irrigated, which can be seen from the 7/12
extracts, wherein the existence of well are mentioned. However, it
was not considered, even though the claimants received the
compensation for the acquired well, which can be seen from the
“E” statement of the Award drawn up by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer. It is further submitted that the reasons and
8 901-FA-517-12.odt
findings of the learned Reference Court are not legal and correct.
It is, therefore, prayed to allow the appeals and set aside the
impugned judgment and award.
4. The learned A.G.P. for the respondent/State has strongly
opposed the appeals and submitted that a reasonable amount of
compensation is awarded and sale exemplar relied upon by the
appellants at Exhibit-68 is not comparable as there is evidence of
an earlier decision of land Reference Court on record. He pointed
out a paragraph No.14 of the impugned judgment and submitted
that 15% escalation is granted by the Reference Court by relying
upon the earlier judgment on the principle of parity. Therefore, no
interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and award.
Learned A.G.P. further pointed out that the Expert has not followed
Miram table method as to material and detail particulars, as to the
status and nature of trees. He further submitted that the claimants
have to claims compensation either for fruit bearing trees or land.
The learned Reference Court has rightly refused the amount of
compensation for the trees. The evidence of the valuer, Venkat
Manikrao Ghogare at Exhibit-56 along with valuation report at
Exhibit-61 and the map at Exhibit-62 showing the existence of
fruit bearing trees, is unbelievable and has been rightly
disbelieved by the learned Reference Court. He prayed to dismiss
all the first appeals.
9 901-FA-517-12.odt
5. The only point for consideration before this Court is,
“whether the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants,
is as per the market value of the acquired lands or not?”
6. On perusal of the evidence and the reasons in the impugned
judgment, this Court finds that the sale exemplar Exhibit-68 has
rightly not been believed by the learned Reference Court by
holding that the claimants’ land was more inferior as compare to
the lands purchased under the sale exemplar at Exhibit-68.
Further, the evidence of Vaijantabai Vasant Kande (PW-3) was
rightly not believed by the learned Reference Court.
7. In the impugned judgment, particularly, paragraph No.14,
the learned Reference Court has relied upon the judgment of the
earlier reference case and granted 15% escalation in price
increase for six years and determined and awarded the proper
compensation. Thus, market value of the acquired land for one
and same project was determined @ Rs.1041/- per Are. however,
claimants’ lands are irrigated, which is established from the 7/12
extracts and ‘E’ statement drawn up of L.A.O. Therefore, the
claimants are entitled to double of the said amount, i.e.
@ Rs.2,082/- per Are for their acquired irrigated lands. Thus, the
acquired lands are irrigated, double rate of compensation is to be
awarded.
8. There is absolutely no scope for interference in the
10 901-FA-517-12.odt
impugned judgment and award with regard to the valuation of the
trees and sale exemplar at Exhibit-68. The compensation as per
market value is rightly determined by the learned Reference Court.
The appeal, therefore, deserves to be partly allowed. The
impugned judgment and award deserves to be partly set aside.
Hence, the order;
ORDER
(i) The first appeals are partly allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award are partly set aside and
modified as under;
(a) The appellant/claimants are entitled to enhanced
compensation amount @ Rs.2082/- per Are for their
acquired lands, including the earlier compensation
awarded and received by them along with all statutory
benefits like interest, component and solatium, as per
the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
(iii) It is clarified that the appellants / claimants are not entitled
to the interest for the period of delay, if any, is condoned by
this Court.
(iv) The respondent is directed to deposit the enhanced amount
of compensation along with all statutory benefits like
interest, component and solatium etc., within six
weeks/months from today.
11 901-FA-517-12.odt
(v) If court fee is not fully paid, the appellants shall pay deficit
court fee. On receiving the same, the enhanced amount of
compensation be paid to the claimants.
(vi) Award be drawn up accordingly.
(vii) Pending civil application, if any, is disposed of.
(viii) Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned
Reference Court.
[SANJAY A. DESHMUKH]
JUDGE
rrd
Checking your session…