1 19A) FA 119-2015-J.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO. 119 OF 20 15 Sunil S/o. Santoshrao Shende, Aged about 46 years, Occupation: Agriculturist, R/o. Nimboli, Tahasil Arvi, Dist. Wardha. ... Appellant .. Versus .. 1. The State of Maharashtra Through District Collector, Wardha 2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Lower Wardha Project, Wardha 3. Executive Engineer, Lower Wardha Project Division, Wardha ... Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri V.S.Kukday, Advocate for Appellant. Shri B.M.Lonare, AGP for Respondent/State. Shri M.A. Kadu, Advocate for Respondent no. 3. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 30/03/2026 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 08/04/2026 JUDGMENT This is an Appeal under Section 54 of the Land 2026:BHC-NAG:5558 2 19A) FA 119-2015-J.odt Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘L.A.Act’) by the Claimant being not satisfied with the judgment and award dated 29/10/2014 passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha in Land Reference/LAC No. 204/2008, awarding total compensation of Rs. 86,400/- towards the acquisition of land admeasuring 1.08 HR, out of Survey No. 146, situated at village Nimboli, Tq. Arvi, District Wardha for the submergence in Lower Wardha Project (Nimna Wardha Prakalpa). 2. The Claimant preferred the above referred Reference Application with the contention that, Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 05/11/1998 and the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) on 29/11/2002, determining the compensation @ Rs. 50,000/- per hectare for the above referred land of the Claimant, and awarded the total compensation of Rs. 1,04,579/- inclusive of the statutory benefits. The Claimant claimed the compensation @ Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre. The Claimant examined himself and brought on record the Index No.-II in respect of one sale transaction out of village Karmabad, Tq. Arvi, District Wardha and other 3 19A) FA 119-2015-J.odt relevant documents such as award etc. The Reference Application was contested by the Respondent(s) by filing Written Statement at Exh. 10. Considering the evidence on record, the learned Reference Court passed the above referred judgment and award. 3. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and the learned counsel for the Acquiring Body. Perused the papers on record. (a) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Appellant that, though the sale instance brought on record by the Appellant showing the rate of Rs. 2,50,000/- per hectare and considered by the learned Reference Court, the compensation was awarded @ Rs. 1,30,000/- per hectare. The Appellant deposed that, his land was irrigated. The subject matter of the Appeal was covered by the earlier decisions in Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, Wardha V/s. Vikram Laxmanrao Deshmukh and ors. {2020(1) Mh.L.J. 931} and Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, Wardha V/s. Kishore Vishwasrao Shirpurkar and ors. {Judgment of this Court in First Appeal No. 244/2014, decided on June 30, 2025}. 4 19A) FA 119-2015-J.odt The learned counsel further submits that, the Appeal be allowed in terms of above referred judgments. (b) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Acquiring Body that, the distance between the acquired land and the land which was the subject mater of the sale instance relied upon by the Claimant was 4 Km. This was accepted in the cross-examination. There is no evidence to show that, the acquired land was irrigated land. Only oral evidence is led that, the acquired land was irrigated. No case for enhancement is made out. He relied on the judgment in Manoj Kumar and ors. V/s. State of Haryana and others {(2018) 13 SCC 96}. 4. In VIDC V/s. Vikram (supra), the land from village Borgaon Hatla admeasuring 12.92 HR was acquired for the same project. Notification under Section 4 of the L.A.Act was issued on 15/01/1999 and the award was passed on 25/02/2003, determining the rate of Rs. 37,500/- per hectare. In the Reference, the learned Reference Court determined the compensation @ Rs. 3,50,000/- per acre. This Court in the Appeal brought down the compensation @ Rs. 2,50,000/- per 5 19A) FA 119-2015-J.odt hectare on the ground that, the sale instance considered by the learned Reference Court was post Notification and discarded the sale instance prior to Notification. In VIDC V/s. Kishore (supra), the land situated at Mouze Borgaon (Hatala), Tah. Arvi, District Wardha was acquired for the same project. Notification under Section 4 of the L.A.Act was issued on 15/01/1999 and the award was passed on 25/02/2003, granting compensation of Rs. 50,500/- per hectare. The learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation. This Court relying on the said decision in VIDC V/s. Vikram (supra) determined the compensation @ Rs. 2,50,000/- per hectare. 5. In Manoj Kumar (supra), it is observed that, the determination of compensation in each case depends upon the nature of land and the evidence adduced therein. It may be that better evidence has been adduced in the later case regarding the actual value of property including subsequent sale deeds executed after the award and before the preliminary notification under Section 4 are also to be considered, if filed. The awards and judgments in the cases involving others, not being inter partes, are not binding precedents. The previous 6 19A) FA 119-2015-J.odt awards/judgments are the only piece of evidence, on par with comparative sale transactions. To base the determination of compensation on a previous award/judgment, the evidence considered in the previous judgment/award and its acceptability on judicial parameters must necessarily be examined, otherwise, gross injustice may be caused to either parties. 6. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Appellant that, the Appellant in his evidence deposed that, the acquired land was irrigated, there is no other evidence to support the said contention of the Appellant. The final ‘M’ Statement below Exh. 4 and the final award, do not show the well and/or pipeline in the Appellant’s acquired land. The learned Reference Court observed that, the acquired land was undisputedly the ‘Dry Crop Land’. The learned Reference Court further observed that, it is not established by the Claimant as to whether the land which was the subject matter of the sale instance, wherein the rate was Rs. 2,50,000/- per hectare, was the ‘Dry Crop Land’. In absence of any material on record to show that, the Appellant’s acquired land was the irrigated land, no fault can be found with the observations of the learned Reference Court that, the Appellant’s 7 19A) FA 119-2015-J.odt acquired land was the “Dry Crop Land”. Considering the land which was the subject matter of the sale instance as irrigated, the learned Reference Court observed that, one-half of the rate for Dry Crop Land was to be awarded and having regard to the date of Section 4 Notification, determined the rate at Rs. 1,30,000/- per hectare. 7. In the above referred two (2) decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the Appellant, the acquisition was for the same project i.e. Lower Wardha Project and the rate per hectare was brought down to Rs. 2,50,000/- in the Appeals preferred by the Acquiring Body. Perusal of the said judgments, show that, the lands therein were situated in another village named Borgaon Hatala. Perusal of copy of Appeal Memo in VIDC V/s. Kishore (supra), shows that, there is nothing to show that, the said lands which were the subject matter of the aforesaid two (2) Appeals were Dry Crop Land. A copy of Appeal Memo in First Appeal No. 512/2015 (Kishore S/o. Vishwasrao Shirpurkar V/s. State of Maharashtra and ors.), which is tendered across the Bar by the learned counsel for the Appellant shows that, the said Appeal was out of the judgment and order 8 19A) FA 119-2015-J.odt dated 21/12/2012 passed by the learned Reference Court in Reference No. 74/2007, in which it was the contention that, the land therein was the best available land and not a Koradwahu land (not ‘Dry Crop Land’) …. The Appeal as seen from the order dated 30/06/2025 was withdrawn. The judgment in VIDC V/s. Kishore (supra) was preferred by the Acquiring Body against the very same judgment and order dated 21/12/2012 in LAC No. 74/2007, wherein the rate was brought down to Rs. 2,50,000/- per hectare. It goes to show that, the land which was the subject matter of the said Appeal was not the Dry Crop Land. The judgment in the said Appeal was based on the above referred judgment in VIDC V/s. Vikram (supra). Thus, the said decision, which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the Appellant will not be of any assistance in the present Appeal, wherein the learned Reference Court has appropriately granted one half rate for the Dry Crop Land. The observations made by the learned Reference Court are based on evidence on record and no interference is called for in the judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court. The Appeal fails. Hence, the following order:- 9 19A) FA 119-2015-J.odt ORDER i) The Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. ii) R & P be sent back to the learned Reference Court. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] B.T.K.