1-FA-3134-2008.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 1 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3134 OF 2008 Sudhakar Keshav Nimdeo VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others …… Mr. Shashikant S. Londhe, Advocate for the Appellant Mr. S.S. Dande, AGP for Respondents No.1 and 3 …… CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 04 SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. This appeal is preferred by the original claimant challenging the Judgment and Award dated 08.03.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hingoli in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.137 of 1991 and 136 of 1991, whereby the learned Reference Court, by a common Judgment and Award, enhanced the market value of the acquired land to Rs.12,000/- per Hectare. 3. The appellant was the owner of agricultural land bearing Gut No.261, admeasuring 6 Hectares 20 R, situated at village Bhingi, Taluka Hingoli, District Parbhani. The said land was acquired for construction of the Hadgaon Minor Irrigation Tank. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the Official Gazette on 15.04.1886. The award under Section 11 of the Act was passed on 03.06.1989. The 2026:BHC-AUG:41313 1-FA-3134-2008.odt 2 Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation for the acquired land at rates ranging from Rs.7,500/- to Rs.8,500/- per Hectare. The claimant, being dissatisfied with the compensation offered, accepted the same under protest and sought a reference under Section 18 of the Act. The learned Reference Court enhanced the market value to Rs.12,000/- per Hectare. Being dissatisfied with the enhancement so granted, the claimant has preferred the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that the controversy involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 30.10.2018 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.303 of 2001. He submits that the said appeal was preferred by the claimant in Land Acquisition Reference No.136 of 1991 against the very same Judgment and Award, whereas the present appeal was left out while considered the said appeal. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the Coordinate Bench, after considering the material on record, partly allowed First Appeal No.303 of 2001 and determined the market value of the acquired dry land at Rs.22,000/- per Hectare. He submits that the land involved in the present appeal is irrigated/bagayat land and, therefore, the claimant is entitled to appropriate enhancement in accordance with the nature of the acquired land. 1-FA-3134-2008.odt 3 6. Learned AGP appearing for the acquiring body submits that the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in First Appeal No.303 of 2001 concerns the same acquisition and the same Judgment and Award. He, therefore, submits that the said judgment may be taken into consideration while deciding the present appeal. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties and have gone through the material placed on record. 8. It is not in dispute that the acquisition in the present appeal is the same acquisition which was the subject matter of First Appeal No.303 of 2001. It is also not in dispute that the said appeal arose out of the same Judgment and Award dated 08.03.2000 passed by the learned Reference Court. The Coordinate Bench, while considering First Appeal No.303 of 2001, determined the market value of the acquired dry land at Rs.22,000/- per Hectare. The said determination is, therefore, relevant for considering the claim made in the present appeal. 9. Insofar as the nature of the land involved in the present appeal is concerned, the material on record indicates that there was a well in the acquired land. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had separately awarded compensation towards the well. The learned Reference Court has also recorded a finding regarding the high fertility of the acquired land and its bagayat/irrigated nature. 1-FA-3134-2008.odt 4 10. Thus, the acquired land in the present appeal cannot be treated on the same footing as dry land. Having regard to the finding recorded by the learned Reference Court regarding the nature and fertility of the land, the claimant would be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.44,000/- per Hectare for the acquired irrigated/bagayat land. 11. Thus, considering the market value of the dry land determined by the Coordinate Bench at Rs.22,000/- per Hectare and having regard to the finding recorded by the learned Reference Court that the acquired land is irrigated/bagayat land, the claimant is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.44,000/- per Hectare for the acquired irrigated/bagayat land. However, as this Court has treated the acquired land as irrigated land, the appellant-claimant is not entitled to separate compensation towards the well. Therefore, 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. 12. In view of the above discussion, the Judgment and Award passed by the learned Reference Court, therefore, needs to be modified to that extent. Hence, the following order: O R D E R (i) The First Appeal is partly allowed. 1-FA-3134-2008.odt 5 (ii) The common impugned Judgment and Award dated 08.03.2000 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hingoli in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.137 of 1991 and 136 of 1991 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.44,000/- 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 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 remaining part of the Judgment and Award passed by the learned Reference Court shall remain unaltered. (viii) The modified award be drawn accordingly. (ix) The appellant-claimant shall pay the deficit Court fees, if any, on the enhanced compensation. (x) Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE S P Rane