1 902 FA.885.2014 ORS.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. 902 FIRST APPEAL NO. 885 OF 2014 JAYABAI DNYANOBA CHAPTE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 864 OF 2011 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER VERSUS JAYABAI DNYANOBA CHAPTE AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 860 OF 2011 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER VERSUS DHONDIRAM RAMRAO SURYAWANSHI AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 882 OF 2014 BABURAO MANIK CHAPTE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 857 OF 2011 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER VERSUS VISHVAMBHAR PARVATRAO BIRADAR AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 881 OF 2014 DHONDIRAM RAMRAO SURYAWANSHI VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER 2026:BHC-AUG:19186 2 902 FA.885.2014 ORS.odt AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 884 OF 2014 VISHVAMBHAR PARVATRAO BIRADAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 883 OF 2014 KAMALBAI MANIK KUMBHAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 853 OF 2011 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER VERSUS BABURAO MANIK CHAPTE AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 852 OF 2011 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER VERSUS KAMALBAI MANIK KUMBHAR … Mr. H. B. Nandagavale, a/w Mr. Vijay G. Sakolkar, Advocate for Claimants. Mr. S. B. Jadhav, AGP for State of Maharashtra & Acquiring Authority. … CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 28th April, 2026. Per Court: 1 First Appeal Nos.852, 853, 857, 860 and 864 of 2011 have been preferred by the State of Maharashtra and the Acquiring Authority 3 902 FA.885.2014 ORS.odt for reducing the amount of compensation against the common judgment and award dated 17th April, 2008, passed by the learned Land Reference Court, District Latur, in LAR Nos.86, 88, 89, 92 and 252 of 2007, whereas First Appeal Nos.881, 882, 883, 884 and 885 of 2014 have been preferred by the claimants raising the grievance that inadequate compensation has been awarded to them. 2 The claimants’ lands were acquired for the purpose of construction of Gurnal Storage Tank, Gurnal, Taluka Deoni, District Latur, as per the notification issued and published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the said Act”) dated 8th September, 2005. 3 The learned Advocate for the claimants pointed out the judgment dated 8th April, 2026, passed by this Court in First Appeal No.1011 of 2014 (Laxman Manik Biradar Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another), by which this Court determined the compensation @ Rs.7,508/- per R for non-irrigated and @ Rs.15,016/- per R for irrigated. He submitted that the acquired land of the claimant in First Appeal No.881 of 2014 is irrigated and the acquired lands of the claimants in the remaining first appeals are non-irrigated. He further submitted that the claimants’ lands were acquired for one and the same purpose, by one and same notification issued and published 4 902 FA.885.2014 ORS.odt under Section 4 of the said Act, and by one and the same award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. He, therefore, prayed to allow the appeals filed by the claimants on the principle of parity and to dismiss the appeals filed by the State. 4 The learned AGP for the State and the Acquiring Authority submitted that considering the quality and market value of the acquired lands, the compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court is exorbitant. He further strongly opposed the appeals filed by the claimants and submitted that the principle of parity is not applicable to their case, as urged by the learned Advocate for the claimants. He, therefore, prayed to allow the appeals filed by the State by setting aside the impugned judgment and award and to dismiss the appeals filed by the claimants. 5 On perusal of the impugned judgment and award and the judgment of this Court in First Appeal No.1011 of 2014 (supra), this Court found that the claimants’ lands were acquired from one and the same village, for one and the same project, by one and same notification issued and published under Section 4 of the said Act, and also by one and the same award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Hence, principle of parity is applicable to the claimants’ case. Therefore, the appeals filed by the State deserve to be dismissed. The 5 902 FA.885.2014 ORS.odt appeals filed by the claimants deserve to be allowed. The impugned judgment and award deserves to be partly set aside. Hence, the following order:- O R D E R I. The First Appeals filed by the State are dismissed. II. The First Appeals filed by the Claimants are allowed. III. The impugned judgment and award is partly set aside and modified as under:- a) The claimant in First Appeal No.881 of 2014 is entitled to compensation @ Rs.15,016/- per R for his irrigated land, and the claimants in the remaining first appeals are entitled for compensation @ Rs.7,508/- per R for their non- irrigated lands, including the earlier compensation awarded and received by them, along with all statutory benefits like interest, component and solatium etc., as per the Provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. b) Rest of the judgment and award is confirmed. IV. It is clarified that the claimants are not entitled to the interest and other statutory benefits for the period of delay, if any, condoned by this Court. V. The State and Acquiring Authority are directed to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation along with all 6 902 FA.885.2014 ORS.odt statutory benefits like interest, component and solatium etc., in this Court within six months. VI. If court fee is not sufficiently paid, the claimants shall pay deficit court fee. On receiving the same, the enhanced amount of compensation be paid to the claimants. VII. Award be drawn up accordingly. VIII. Pending civil applications, if any, are disposed of. IX. Record and Proceedings be sent back. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] nga