1 901 n 943 FA.625.2012 ORS.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. 901 FIRST APPEAL NO. 625 OF 2012 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR OSMANABAD VERSUS DATTU YADHAVRAO MANE, DIED THROUGH L.RS. MADHUKAR DATTU MANE AND ANOTHER AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 623 OF 2012 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR OSMANABAD AND ANOTHER VERSUS MANIK CHANBASAPPA RACHETTI, DIED THR. L.RS. PANDIT MANIK RACHETTI AND OTHERS AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 624 OF 2012 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR OSMANABAD AND ANOTHER VERSUS GEETABAI EKNATH CHAUGALE AND ANOTHER AND CROSS-OBJECTION (STAMP) NO.10001 OF 2026 IN FA/625/2012 DATTU YADHARAO MANE DIED THR. L.RS. MADHUKAR DATTU MANE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR OSMANABAD AND ANOTHER AND CROSS-OBJECTION (STAMP) NO.9994 OF 2026 IN FA/624/2012 2026:BHC-AUG:17300 2 901 n 943 FA.625.2012 ORS.odt GEETABAI EKNATH CHAUGALE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR OSMANABAD AND ANOTHER AND 943 FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 1387 OF 2014 PANDIT MANIK RACHETTI DIED THROUGH L.RS DHANRAJ PANDIT RACHETTI AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR OSMANABAD ... Mr. Shashikiran N. Patil & Mr. N. S. Birajdar, Advocates for Claimants. Mr. S. B. Jadhav, AGP for the State. Mr. S. G. Sangle, Advocate for acquiring body. ... CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 18th April, 2026. Per Court: 1 First Appeal Nos.623, 624 and 625 of 2012 have been preferred by the State Government for reducing the amount of compensation against the common judgment and award dated 17th April, 2010, passed by the learned Land Reference Court, Taluka Omerga, District Osmanabad, in LAR Nos.412, 414 and 427 of 2009, whereas the cross-objections and First Appeal (Stamp) No.1387 of 2014 are filed by the claimants raising the grievance that inadequate compensation has been awarded to them. 3 901 n 943 FA.625.2012 ORS.odt 2 The learned Advocate for the claimants submitted that the claimants’ lands are acquired for the construction of Benitura Medium Project, Turgaon, Tahsil Omerga, District Osmanabad, as per the notification issued and published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the said Act”), dated 18th December, 1987. 3 The learned Advocate for the claimants pointed out the judgment dated 11th February, 2026, passed by this Court in First Appeal No.765 of 2007 with cross-objection, by which this Court determined the compensation @ Rs.1,20,000/- per Acre for irrigated land. He submitted that the claimants’ lands and the land of the claimant in First Appeal No.765 of 2007 were acquired for one and the same purpose and by one and same notification. Therefore, the principle of parity is applicable to the claimants’ case. 4 The learned Advocate for the claimants pointed out that there is well situated in the acquired lands by which the claimants were cultivating commercial crop. He also pointed out the award, which corroborates the same. It is lastly prayed to allow the cross-objections and First Appeal (Stamp) No.1387 of 2014 filed by the claimants and to dismiss the first appeals filed by the State Government. 4 901 n 943 FA.625.2012 ORS.odt 5 The learned AGP and the learned Advocate for the acquiring body submitted that the learned Reference Court has awarded an excessive amount of compensation without due consideration of the evidence on record. It is lastly prayed to allow the appeals filed by the State Government and to dismiss the cross- objections and First Appeal (Stamp) No.1387 of 2014 filed by the claimants. 6 On perusal of the impugned judgment and award and the judgment of this Court in First Appeal No.765 of 2007 (supra), it is crystal clear that the claimants’ lands and the land of the claimant in First Appeal No.765 of 2007 were acquired for one and the same project. The claimants are therefore, entitled to the enhanced rate of compensation, on the principle of parity, as per the judgment of this Court in First Appeal No.765 of 2007 (supra). The claimants have established that their lands are having water facility. Thus, the claimants’ lands are irrigated and therefore, on the principle of parity, they are entitled to compensation @ Rs.1,20,000/- per Acre. 7 In view of the above, the appeals filed by the State Government deserve to be dismissed. The cross-objections and First Appeal (Stamp) No.1387 of 2014 filed by the claimants deserve to be allowed. The impugned judgment and award deserves to be partly set 5 901 n 943 FA.625.2012 ORS.odt aside. Hence, the following order:- O R D E R I. The first appeals filed by the State Government are dismissed. II. The cross-objections and First Appeal (Stamp) No.1387 of 2014 filed by the claimants are allowed. III. The impugned judgment and award is partly set aside and modified as under:- a) The claimants are entitled to the compensation @ Rs.1,20,000/- per Acre, including the earlier amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and enhanced by the learned Reference Court. The claimants are entitled to the statutory benefits like component, interest and solatium as per the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. b) The claimants are entitled to the interest under the caption of component @ 12% per annum, instead of 8% per annum. c) It is clarified that the claimants are entitled for interest from the date of award, as per the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari, reported in, 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457. 6 901 n 943 FA.625.2012 ORS.odt d) Rest of the judgment and award is confirmed. IV. The claimants are not entitled to interest for the delayed period, which was condoned by this Court, if any. V. The enhanced amount of compensation with statutory interest etc. shall be deposited in this court within a period of six months from today and on payment of deficit Court fee, if any, it be paid to the claimants. VI. Award be drawn up accordingly. VII. Pending civil applications, if any, is disposed of. VIII. Record and proceedings be sent back. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] nga