1 907 FA.1600.2015 ORS.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. 907 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1600 OF 2015 DATTU KISHANRAO JADHAV (DIED) THROUGH LRS SHANTABAI DATTU JADHAV AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 1598 OF 2015 SHIVAJI RAM MORE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 1599 OF 2015 RAM HANMANTA MORE (DIED) THROUGH LRS SHIVAJI RAM MORE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS … Mr. Vivekanand V. Ingale, Advocate for Appellants / Claimants. Ms. Anuradha S. Mantri, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mrs. Sunita D. Shelke, Advocate for Respondent No.3 / acquiring body. … CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 18th April, 2026. Per Court: 1 These appeals have been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of amount of compensation against the judgment and award dated 18th November, 2009, passed by the learned Land 2026:BHC-AUG:16899 2 907 FA.1600.2015 ORS.odt Reference Court, Taluka Omerga, District Osmanabad, in LAR Nos.108, 83 and 88 of 2005. 2 The learned Advocate for the claimants pointed out the judgment dated 27th March, 2026, passed by this Court in First Appeal No.1392 of 2010 and other connected matters, by which this Court determined the compensation @ Rs.3,212/- per R. He submitted that the claimants’ lands are acquired for one and the same purpose i.e. submergence of Kolsur Medium Project and the notification issued and published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “said Act”) is also same. He, therefore, prayed to allow the appeals on the principle of parity. 3 The learned AGP and the learned Advocate for the acquiring body strongly opposed the appeals and submitted that the principle of parity is not applicable to the present appeals. It is lastly prayed to dismiss the appeals. 4 On perusal of the impugned judgment and award and the judgment of this Court in First Appeal No.1392 of 2010 (supra), this Court found that the appellants’ lands and the land in First Appeal No.1392 of 2010 are acquired for one and the same purpose, from one and same village, by one and same notification issued and published under Section 4 of the said Act and even the land references were 3 907 FA.1600.2015 ORS.odt decided by one and same Reference Court. The claimants are therefore, entitled to the enhanced rate of compensation, on the principle of parity, as per the judgment of this Court in First Appeal No.1392 of 2010 (supra). On the basis of 7/12 extract and the recitals in the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, it is established that the claimants’ lands are irrigated. Therefore, the appellants’ / claimants’ are entitled to the compensation @ Rs.3212/- per R. 5 As far as the compensation for mango trees is concerned, the reasons and findings of the learned Reference Court are legal and correct. The learned Reference has rightly disbelieved the evidence of the valuer. Therefore, the compensation for the mango trees cannot be enhanced. 6 In view of the above, the appeals 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 are allowed. II. The impugned judgment and award is partly set aside and modified as under:- 4 907 FA.1600.2015 ORS.odt a) The claimants are entitled to the compensation @ Rs.3,212/- per R, which includes earlier amount paid to the claimants along with accrued interest and costs etc. b) The claimants are also entitled for statutory benefits like additional components, interest and solatium as per the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. c) Rest of the judgment and award is confirmed. III. The claimants are not entitled to interest for the delayed period, which was condoned by this Court, if any. IV. The enhanced amount of compensation with statutory interest etc. shall be deposited in this court within a period of six months from today and on payment of deficit Court fee, if any, it be paid to the appellants. V. Award be drawn up accordingly. VI. Pending civil applications, if any, is disposed of. VII. Record and proceedings be sent back. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] nga