FA 2838/13 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 25 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2838 OF 2013 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIV. OBAD VERSUS MANOHAR KRISHNA CHAUDHARI (WARIK) AND ANR ... WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2837 OF 2013 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11841 OF 2022 IN FA/2887/2013 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, OSMANABAD THR GMIDC VERSUS ILIAS HAJIMOHAMAD QURESHI AND ANR … WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2885 OF 2013 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, OSMANABAD THR GMIDC VERSUS HANMANT MANOHAR CHAUDHARI(WARIK) AND ORS … WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2887 OF 2013 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11634 OF 2018 IN FA/2887/2013 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, OSMANABAD THR GMIDC VERSUS ABDUL SHAKUR MAHEBOOBSAB QURESHI AND ANR … Advocate for Appellants : Mr. Dheple Shantaram R. AGP for Respondent/State : Mrs. A.S. Mantri Advocate for Respondents/claimants : Mr. V.S. Tanwade … CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. Dated : July 27, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Admit. 2. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for respective 2026:BHC-AUG:31922 FA 2838/13 2 parties. 3. By the present appeals, the acquiring body challenge the judgments and awards passed by the learned reference court in different land acquisition references. 4. The lands of the claimants involved in the present appeals were acquired for the project Wadala Minor Irrigation Tank from different villages. The notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be published on 11.3.1993. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) passed the award dated 18.11.1996 and granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 17,000/- per H. The claimants being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation, preferred land acquisition references wherein the reference court enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs. 50,000/- per Acre for seasonally irrigated lands i.e. for their acquired lands. Being aggrieved by the same, the acquiring body has filed the present appeals. 5. The learned counsel for the acquiring body in respective matters submit that SLAO has granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 17,000/- per H. and same was enhanced by the reference court by granting compensation at the rate of Rs. 50000/- per Acre for seasonally irrigated lands. 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. 6. 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. Claimants have placed reliance on E FA 2838/13 3 statement, Exh. 19, 7/12 extracts, Exh. 20, 21, 23, 25, 35 and 39 and the sale instances Exh. 22 and 24. He submits that the acquiring lands though seasonally irrigated lands, the SLAO has granted very meager compensation and the reference court without considering the sale instances has granted very inadequate compensation though they are entitled to receive more enhancement. 7. 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 confirmed by this court in FA No. 1918/2020. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, I have FA 2838/13 4 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 Takviki 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 Takviki 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. 2250/- per R. for seasonally 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 other statutory benefits are concerned, the claimants are entitled to receive the interest in view of the law laid down FA 2838/13 5 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/