904-FA-1146-2008.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 904 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1146 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10159 OF 2026 IN FA/1146/2008 Niwarti Ganpati Shinde VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Another …… Mr. B.K. Pawar, Advocate for Appellant Mr. A.D. Wange, AGP for Respondent No.1-State …… CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 04 SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : ORDER IN CA/10159 OF 2026: 1. The present Civil Application is filed for bringing the legal representative of deceased applicant/claimant, Niwarati S/o Ganpati Shinde, on record by condoning the delay of 2928 days caused in bringing the legal representative of the deceased applicant/claimant on record. 2. Considering the averments made in the application, the application is allowed. The delay caused in bringing the legal representative of the deceased applicant/claimant on record is condoned. Abatement, if any, is set aside. The legal representative be brought on record. 3. Amendment be carried out accordingly. 2026:BHC-AUG:41296 904-FA-1146-2008.odt 2 ORDER IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1446 OF 2008: 4. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 5. The present appeal arises out of the impugned Judgment and Award dated 30.07.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, in Land Acquisition Reference No.23 of 2004. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned AGP submit that the controversy involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the order dated 05.08.2026 passed by this Court in First Appeal No.303 of 2006, as the land of the appellant was acquired from the same village, i.e. Lamjana, for the same public purpose, i.e. construction of Percolation Tank at village Lamjana, Taluka Ausa, District Latur, and under the very same notification as involved in the said appeal. They, therefore, submit that the present appeal may also be disposed of in terms of the said order. 7. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties, and in view of the admitted position that the controversy involved in the present appeal is identical to the one decided by this Court by order dated 05.08.2026 in First Appeal No.303 of 2006, wherein this Court determined the market value of the acquired dry land at the rate of Rs.1,66,600/- per Hectare, I see no reason to take a different view. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be disposed of in terms of 904-FA-1146-2008.odt 3 the said order. 8. In the present appeal, the learned Reference Court has treated the acquired land as irrigated land. Therefore, the appellant-claimant is entitled to compensation for the acquired irrigated/bagayat land at the rate of Rs.3,33,200/- per Hectare, which is rounded off to Rs.3,33,000/- per Hectare. However, since the acquired land is irrigated land, the appellant- claimant is not entitled to separate compensation towards the well. Accordingly, the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer towards the well, along with the interest accrued thereon, shall be deducted from the enhanced compensation. Hence, the following order: O R D E R (i) The First Appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned Judgment and Award dated 30.07.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, in Land Acquisition Reference No.23 of 2004 is modified to the aforesaid extent. (iii) The appellant-claimant is held entitled to receive compensation for the acquired irrigated/bagayat land at the rate of Rs.3,33,000/- per Hectare. (iv) Since the acquired land has been treated as irrigated land, the appellant-claimant shall not be entitled to separate compensation towards the well. The amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer 904-FA-1146-2008.odt 4 towards the well, along with the interest accrued thereon, shall accordingly be deducted from the enhanced compensation. (v) The appellant-claimant shall be entitled to all statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in accordance with law. (vi) The appellant-claimant shall be entitled to interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, strictly in accordance with the Full Bench decision of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457. (vii) The appellant-claimant shall not be entitled to interest for the period of delay, if any. (viii) The modified award be drawn accordingly. (ix) The remaining part of the Judgment and Award passed by the learned Reference Court shall remain unaltered. (x) The appellant-claimant shall pay the deficit Court fees, if any, on the enhanced compensation. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE S P Rane