9-SPK-FA-2416-2016.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 9 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2416 OF 2016 Satish Janardhan Kulkarni Died Thr Lrs Anjali And Anr VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others ... Mr. Gajanan Sontakke h/f Mrs. P. G. Sontakke for Appellants. Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for State. Mr. Shyam Arora for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 10 JULY 2026 P. C.: 1. Admit. 2. As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1999, Appeal is heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. 3. By this Appeal, the Appellants-original claimants are aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 2nd January 2014, passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Nilanga in LAR No.40 of 2008 whereby learned Reference Court refused to grant enhanced compensation to the extent claimed by the Appellants-claimants. 4. The land of the Appellant-claimants was acquired for construction of Lower Terna Right Canal at Kokalgaon. The notification under Section 4 came to be published on 2nd December 1999 but the possession was taken in the year 1998 i.e. prior to notification under Section 4. The award came to This order is corrected pursuant to speaking to the minutes order dated 18th July 2026. Shubham 9-SPK-FA-2416-2016.doc be passed on 11th July 2001. The LAO granted compensation of Rs.14,697/- whereas the claimants claimed Rs.1,45,303/- in compensation. The learned Reference Court granted compensation @Rs.1050/- per R. 5. Mr. Gajanan Sontakke holding for Mrs. P. G. Sontakke, learned counsel for the Appellants-claimants submits that the learned Reference Court erroneously treated the acquired land as dry land despite the 7/12 extracts filed on record below Exh.34 to 45 clearly established that the land had irrigation facility. Even the crop pattern suggested that the Appellants- claimants were cultivating sugarcane which clearly shows that the land of Appellants-claimants was irrigated land. Hence, the learned Reference Court has grossly erred in not treating the acquired land as irrigated land and therefore he prays to allow the present Appeal thereby granting compensation at the rate applicable to irrigated land. 6. Per contra, learned AGP for the State and Mr. Arora for the acquiring body strongly opposed the present Appeal on the ground that learned Reference Court has rightly treated the acquired land as dry land by recording findings in paragraph 23 and 24 that the 7/12 extracts are not sufficient proof of availability of irrigation facility and thus the Appellants- claimants were granted compensation by treating the acquired land as dry land. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced and perused the This order is corrected pursuant to speaking to the minutes order dated 18th July 2026. Shubham 9-SPK-FA-2416-2016.doc impugned award and record. I have also perused 7/12 extracts below Exh.34 to 45 which show that the Appellants-claimants were having one borewell and pipeline in the acquired land. Even the crop pattern suggested that they were cultivating sugarcane. Thus, in my opinion the land of the Appellants-claimants ought to have been treated as irrigated land. The learned Reference Court has granted compensation @Rs.1050/- per R by treating acquired land as dry land, thus the compensation for irrigated land would be double the compensation for dry land i.e. Rs.2100/- per R. 8. Further, the impugned award reveals that the possession was taken one year prior to notification under Section 4. Therefore, the Appellants- claimants are also entitled to interest under Section 34 from the date of award in view of law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari (2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457). Hence, I proceed to pass following order:- O R D E R i. Appeal is partly allowed ii. The Appellants-claimants are entitled to claim compensation @Rs.2100/- per R and to that extent impugned award modified. iii. The Appellants-claimants are also entitled to interest under Section 34 as per Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra) from the date of award. This order is corrected pursuant to speaking to the minutes order dated 18th July 2026. Shubham 9-SPK-FA-2416-2016.doc iv. The claimants are not entitled to receive interest and statutory benefits for the delayed period. v. Rest of the award of the Reference Court stands confirmed vi. Award be drawn accordingly. 9. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.] This order is corrected pursuant to speaking to the minutes order dated 18th July 2026. Shubham