1 902 FA.378.2012 ORS.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. 902 FIRST APPEAL NO. 378 OF 2012 CHHABUBAI KISHAN KENDRE AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 388 OF 2012 SHAIKH JAVED YUSUF VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 377 OF 2012 DAIVSHALA BABURAO BHAGNURE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 363 OF 2012 KONDIBA SAMBHAJI KENDRE AND ANOTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 374 OF 2012 BHAGWAT PANDURANG PAWAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 375 OF 2012 TULSHIRAM ATMARAM PAWAR DIED LRS TULSABAI W/O TULSHIRAM PAWAR AND ANOTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER 2026:BHC-AUG:19614 2 902 FA.378.2012 ORS.odt AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 373 OF 2012 SUNITA GOVIND PAWAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 376 OF 2012 DATTA RAMCHANDRA KENDRE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER … Mr. Vijay G. Sakolkar, Advocate for Appellants / Claimants. Ms. Anuradha S. Mantri, AGP for Respondent No.1 / State. Mr. Satish S. Manale, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 10th April, 2026. Per Court: 1 These appeals have been preferred by the claimants against the judgments and awards dated 12th September, 2011, passed by the learned Land Reference Court, Tahsil Udgir, District Latur, in Land Acquisition References, shown in the following chart:- Sr. No. First Appeal No. LAR No. 1 First Appeal No.378 of 2012 LAR No.1819 of 2010 2 First Appeal No.375 of 2012 LAR No.1824 of 2010 3 First Appeal No.376 of 2012 LAR No.1820 of 2010 4 First Appeal No.373 of 2012 LAR No.1823 of 2010 5 First Appeal No.377 of 2012 LAR No.1822 of 2010 3 902 FA.378.2012 ORS.odt Sr. No. First Appeal No. LAR No. 6 First Appeal No.374 of 2012 LAR No.1821 of 2010 7 First Appeal No.363 of 2012 LAR No.2216 of 2010 8 First Appeal No.388 of 2012 LAR No.2218 of 2010 2 The learned Advocate for the claimants pointed out the pleadings, the evidence, the grounds of objections in the appeals and the reasons and findings in the impugned judgments. 3 The learned Advocate for the claimants submitted that the lands of the claimants / appellants in First Appeal Nos.363 and 388 of 2012 are acquired for the construction of Malhipparga Percolation Tank No.8, at Village Malhipparga, Taluka Jalkot, District Latur, and in the remaining first appeals, for the construction of Shivajinagar Tanda Percolation Tank No.2, Village Malhipparga, Taluka Jalkot, District Latur, as per the notification issued and published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the said Act”), dated 3rd February, 2005 and 10th March, 2005 respectively. In First Appeal Nos.363 and 388 of 2012, possession of the claimants’ lands was taken on 17th December, 2002 and in the remaining first appeals the possession was taken on 1st July, 2003. In First Appeal Nos.363 and 388 of 2012, the Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “LAO”) awarded compensation @ Rs.889/- per R for non-irrigated land and Rs.1333/- per R for seasonally irrigated land. In the remaining first appeals, the 4 902 FA.378.2012 ORS.odt LAO awarded compensation @ Rs.907/- per R for non-irrigated land and Rs.1360/- per R for seasonally irrigated land. The learned Reference Court in all the claims, awarded compensation @ Rs.3,000/- per R for non-irrigated land and Rs.4,500/- per R for seasonally irrigated land. 4 The learned Advocate for the claimants pointed out the sale exemplar at Exhibit-13 dated 29th November, 1999, for 9 R land, sold for consideration of Rs.64,000/- i.e. Rs.7,111/- per R. The learned Reference Court has followed the aggregate method for determining the compensation, which is not legal and correct when sale exemplars are on record. He submitted that the said sale exemplar is of non- irrigated land and the appellants’ / claimants’ lands are irrigated by water supply of the wells. Therefore, the claimants are entitled for double of that amount. He further submitted that some amount can be deducted towards small size of the land in sale exemplar at Exhibit-13. He prayed to award the compensation for non-irrigated and irrigated lands accordingly. He also pointed out that the possession was taken earlier to the notification under Section 4 of the said Act and therefore, the claimants are entitled for rental compensation. He further pointed out that the notification under Section 4 of the said Act was issued on 3rd February, 2005 and 10th March, 2005 and the sale exemplar at Exhibit-13 is executed on 29th November, 1999. He, therefore, prayed 5 902 FA.378.2012 ORS.odt for 10% five years cumulative escalation. He lastly prayed to allow the appeals. 5 Mr. Manale, learned Advocate for the acquiring body strongly opposed the appeals and submitted that the sale exemplar at Exhibit-13 is pertaining to 9 R land only and the claimants’ lands are more than one Acre. He pointed out paragraph No.16 of the impugned judgment, in which it is held that some lands of the claimants are seasonally irrigated. He pointed out the 7/12 extracts, which show that there is no water facility available to some of the claimants’ lands. He submitted to dismiss the appeals, as the reasons and findings in the impugned judgments and awards are legal, correct and no interference is warranted in it. 6 On perusal of the impugned judgments and awards alongwith the record and proceedings, this Court found that there are three sale exemplars at Exhibits-13 to 15. Out of them, the sale exemplar at Exhibit-13 is of highest consideration. As per the settled law, the said sale exemplar has to be relied upon. However, only 9 R land is sold by the said sale exemplar and therefore, 30% amount deserves to be deducted in First Appeal Nos.363 and 378 of 2012. In the remaining first appeals, 30% deduction is not justifiable and only 10% deduction is justifiable. Nine Are land in sale exemplar at Exhibit- 6 902 FA.378.2012 ORS.odt 13 is sold for a consideration of Rs.64,000/- i.e. Rs.7,111/- per R. If 30% amount is deducted from Rs.7,111/-, then that amount comes to Rs.4,977/- per R. If 10% amount is deducted from Rs.7,111/-, then it comes to Rs.6399/- per R. The sale exemplar at Exhibit-13 is executed on 29th November, 1999 and the appellants’ / claimants’ lands were acquired as per the notification issued under Section 4 of the said Act on 3rd February, 2005 and 10th March, 2005. There is five years gap between the sale exemplar at Exhibit-13 and the acquisition process of the claimants’ lands. Therefore, for first three years 7% per annum escalation, and for last two years 10% per annum escalation if awarded, it would be just and proper. If it is cumulatively considered for escalation in the price of the lands, then after 30% deduction the amount comes to Rs.7,377/- per R and after 10% deduction the amount comes to Rs.9,485/- per R. It is the market value of the non- irrigated acquired lands of the claimants, which is shown in the chart of final order. 7 In First Appeal Nos.363 and 388 of 2012, possession of the claimants’ lands was taken on 17th December, 2002 and the notification under Section 4 of the said Act was published in the village on 10th March, 2005. In the remaining first appeals, the possession was taken on 1st July, 2003 and the notification under Section 4 of the said Act was published in the village on 6th April, 2005. For that period, 7 902 FA.378.2012 ORS.odt the claimants are entitled for 9% interest as rental compensation, as per law laid down by Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Shankarrao Bhagwantrao patil VS. State of Maharashtra, (2022) 15 SCC 657. 8 As far as the nature of the lands as to whether those are irrigated or not, the learned Advocate for the claimants pointed out the 7/12 extracts Exhibits 17 and 23 as well as the E-statements in respect of lands in First Appeal Nos.378 and 373 of 2012, which show that wells are situated in those acquired lands. The E-statements i.e. the chart of the compensation awarded to the claimants’ lands with different heads, also corroborates the same. However, the LAO has held that those lands are seasonally irrigated. However, the law is settled that when the water facility is available to the acquired land and even though the agriculturist has not cultivated and harvested the crops like sugarcane and wheat in it, it cannot be assumed that the said land is non-irrigated, but the said land has to be considered as irrigated, as per law laid down in by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Chindha Fakira Patil (D) Through L.Rs. Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, (2011) 10 SCC 787. Therefore, the claimants in those two appeals i.e. First Appeal Nos.373 and 378 of 2012 are entitled to double rate of compensation. The reasons and findings of the learned Reference Court are not legal and correct as 8 902 FA.378.2012 ORS.odt held above. It failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective. Therefore, interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and award. The impugned judgments and awards deserve to be partly set aside. The first appeals deserve to be partly allowed. Hence, the following order:- O R D E R I. The first appeals are allowed. II. The impugned judgments and awards are partly set aside and modified as under:- a) The claimants are entitled to the compensation as per the following chart:- Sr. No. F. A. No. LAR No. Survey No. Area of Land Deduction Upon Nature of Land Rate Per R Rate Per R after adding 5 Years Escalation (Initial 3 Year 7% and 10% for rest of 2 Years ) 1 378 of 2012 1819 of 2010 486 487 488 2 H 52 R 30 % Irrigated 4977 14755 2 375 of 2012 1824 of 2010 466 467 51 R 10 % Non- Irrigated 6399 9485 3 376 of 2012 1820 of 2010 486 77 R 10 % Non- Irrigated 6399 9485 4 373 of 2012 1823 of 2010 485 15 R 10 % Irrigated 12798 18972 5 377 of 2012 1822 of 2010 468 50 R 10 % Non- Irrigated 6399 9485 6 374 of 2012 1821 of 2010 469 32 R 10 % Non- Irrigated 6399 9485 9 902 FA.378.2012 ORS.odt Sr. No. F. A. No. LAR No. Survey No. Area of Land Deduction Upon Nature of Land Rate Per R Rate Per R after adding 5 Years Escalation (Initial 3 Year 7% and 10% for rest of 2 Years ) 7 363 of 2012 2216 of 2010 616 620 3 H 6 R 30 % Non- Irrigated 4977 7377 8 388 of 2012 2218 of 2010 620 41 R 10 % Non- Irrigated 6399 9485 b) The appellants / claimants are also entitled to statutory benefits i.e. solatium, interest and additional components etc. as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. c) The appellants / claimants are entitled to the rental compensation @ 9% per annum from the date of taking possession till issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as held in paragraph No.7 of this judgment. d) Rest of the judgment and award are confirmed. e) Award be drawn up as per the above modification. III. It is clarified that if delay has been condoned by this Court while entertaining the appeals filed by the claimants, the claimants shall not be entitled for interest for the said period of delay. IV. The Respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation alongwith statutory benefits, in this Court within a period of six months from today. 10 902 FA.378.2012 ORS.odt V. The claimants shall deposit the deficit court fees, if any. On deposit of deficit court fees, the amount of compensation be paid to claimants. VI. Pending civil applications, if any, is disposed of. VII. Record and proceedings be sent back. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] nga