Research › Search › Judgment
Bombay High Court · body
2013 DAILYLAW 2782 (BOM)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION OSMANABAD v. BABASAHEB GUNDAPPA PATIL AND OTHERS
FA/2023/2015 · 2026-07-27
Shri Siddheshwar Sundarrao Thombre
body2013
[ 2013 DAILYLAW 2782 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
[ 2013 DAILYLAW 2782 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
FA 770/13 & Ors 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 22 FIRST APPEAL NO. 770 OF 2013 KASHINATH VISHWANATH BAMANKAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR ... WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2926 OF 2017 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, OSMANABAD THR GMIDC AURANGABAD VERSUS SOPAN RAMANNA MANU AND ANR … WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2928 OF 2017 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, OSMANABAD THR GMIDC AURANGABAD VERSUS MEENAKSHI APPARAO DHUMAL AND ANR … WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2927 OF 2017 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, OSMANABAD THR GMIDC AURANGABAD VERSUS NAGNATH BABU DHUMAL THR LRS RUKMINIBAI RAMLING BIDWE AND ANR … WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 748 OF 2014 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7080 OF 2018 IN FA/748/2014 GODAVARI MARATHWADA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, OSMANABAD VERSUS KASHINATH VISHWANATH BAMANKAR AND ANOTHER … WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2023 OF 2015 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, OSMANABAD VERSUS BABASAHEB GUNDAPPA PATIL AND ANOTHER 2026:BHC-AUG:31911
FA 770/13 & Ors 2 … WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1147 OF 2017 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 150 OF 2025 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LOWER TERNA CANAL DIVISION-2, OSMANABAD AND ORS. VERSUS ABHAY KALYANRAO DESHPANDE AND ORS. … WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2159 OF 2017 THE MAHARASHTRA KRUSHNA VALLY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VERSUS MOHAMMAD RASHID SHAIKH … Advocates for Appellants in respective matters : Mr. Anand V. Patil-Indrale, Mr. P.S. Shinde, Mr. A.N. Gaddime, Mr. A.M. Gaikwad, Mr. S.C. Arora AGP for Respondent/State in all matters : Mr. S.S. Dande Advocate for Respondents/claimants in respective matters : Mr. V.V. Ingale, Mr. Sanjay Wakure, Mr. R.P. Adgaonkar, Mr. L.C. Patil Advocate for Respondent No. 2. in FA 770/13 : Ms. Geeta Deshpande …
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. Dated : July 27, 2026 PER COURT :-
1. First Appeal Nos. 2023/2015, 1147/2017 and 2159/2017 are not on board. Taken on board. 2. Admit. 3. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel Mr. Anand V. Patil- Indrale, Mr. P.S. Shinde, Mr. A.N. Gaddime, Mr. A.M. Gaikwad, Mr. S.C. Arora, Mrs. Geeta Deshpande appearing for appellants/acquiring body in respective matters, Mr. S.S. Dande, learned AGP for State, Mr. V.V. Ingale, Mr. Sanjay Wakure, Mr. R.P. Adgaonkar and Mr. L.C. Patil, for original claimants. 4. By the present appeals, the acquiring body as well as the original
FA 770/13 & Ors 3 claimants challenge the judgments and awards passed by the learned reference court in different land acquisition references. 5. The lands of the claimants involved in the present appeals were acquired for the project Wadala Tank from different villages. The notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be published on 25.2.1993. Possession was taken over on 30.12.1992. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) passed the award dated 8.11.1996 and granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 9000/- per Acre and Rs. 6600/- per Acre. The claimants being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation, preferred land acquisition references wherein the reference court enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs. 37,600/- per Acre i.e. 940/- per R. for their acquired lands. Being aggrieved by the same, the acquiring body as well as the original claimants filed the present appeals. 6. The learned counsel for the acquiring body in respective matters submit that SLAO has granted compensation at the rate of RS. 150/- per R. and Rs. 225/- per R. and same was enhanced by the reference court by granting Rs.940/- per R. He submits that the SLAO has already considered the comparable sale instances from the adjoining villages and rightly granted compensation, but the reference court without considering the same has enhanced the compensation which needs to be set aside by allowing the appeals filed by the acquiring body. 7. In support of the above contentions, Mrs. Geeta Deshpande, learned counsel for the acquiring body placed reliance on the judgment and order dated 21.10.2024 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal of 2024 arising out of SLP © No. 7963/2023 (Horrmal (Deceased) through his L.Rs. And others Vs. State of Haryana and Others). FA 770/13 & Ors 4
8.
Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the original claimants submits that the SLAO has granted very meager compensation and therefore, the references were filed. They relied on the sale deed Exhs. 29 and 30 and also on 7/12 extracts Exhs. 19, 24 and 28. They submit that the acquiring lands though dry lands, the SLAO has granted very meager compensation, the reference court without considering the sale instances has granted very inadequate compensation though they are entitled to receive more enhancement. 9. The learned counsel for the original claimants have tendered the copy of the order dated 11.3.2026 passed by this Court in First Appeal No. 1918/2020 (The Ex. Engineer, Minor Irrigation Div. Osmanabad and Ors. Vs. Mohan Maruti Dhole) in which judgment and award dated 18.8.2015 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Osmanabad in LAR No. 432/2011 is under challenge. They submits that the above matter arise from the same project and the reference court enhanced the compensation by granting rate of Rs. 3000/- per R. for irrigated lands. They submit that the said order was challenged by the acquiring body before this Court by filing First Appeal No. 1918/2020 and this court vide order dated 11.3.2026 maintained the rate granted by the reference court, but modified the award to the extent of interest u/s. 34 of the Act in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, reported in 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457. Therefore, they submit that when this court confirmed the award passed in LAR No. 432/2011, the appeals filed by the acquiring body needs to be dismissed and compensation needs to be enhanced in view of the above
judgment in LAR No. 432/2011 passed by the reference court which is also
FA 770/13 & Ors 5 confirmed by this court in FA No. 1918/2020.
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, I have gone through the record and proceedings and also the judgment and award of the reference court. There is no dispute about the fact that lands in the present first appeals are acquired from village Patoda and other villages. As regards the order on which claimants have placed reliance, the lands are from village Bamani and the lands from the village Patoda and Bamani are acquired for Wadala Tank by way of two different notifications. However, the fact remains that the lands from different villages were acquired for the same project. In view of the above, though different notifications are issued, the lands were acquired from different villages for the same project, I find that in the interest of justice, the rate granted in LAR No. 432/2011 by the reference court can be considered for enhancement in appeals filed by the original claimants though it cannot be considered as binding precedent. Therefore, in my view the claimants from the present appeals are also entitled to get the same rate as was granted in LAR NO. 432/2011, which is confirmed by this Court in First Appeal No. 1918/2020. Hence, I pass the following order O R D E R (i) The appeals filed by the acquiring body are partly allowed. (II) The appeals filed by the original claimants are also partly allowed and the claimants are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs.3000/- per R. for irrigated lands, Rs. 1500/- per R. for dry land as classified by the reference court, with all the statutory benefits available under the Land Acquisition Act. (III) As regards interest and statutory benefits under the Act is
FA 770/13 & Ors 6 concerned, the claimants are entitled to receive the interest in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari (supra). (IV) The impugned judgments and awards are modified accordingly. (V) The claimants to pay the deficit court fees, if any, for enhanced compensation. (VI) Pending Civil Applications, if any, are disposed of.
( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. ) ssc/