1 of 4 911-FA.676.2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 911 FIRST APPEAL NO. 676 OF 2017 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS VERSUS MANOHAR LIMBAJI TAKALE AND ANR ... Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for the Appellants-State. Mr. Vitthal D. Bhise, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. ... AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14553 OF 2016 IN FA/676/2017 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS VERSUS MANOHAR LIMBAJI TAKALE AND ANR … Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for the Appellants-State. Mr. D. M. Pingle, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. … AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 675 OF 2017 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR VERSUS SANJAY RAMKISAN TAKALE … Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for the Appellants-State. Mr. Vitthal D. Bhise, Advocate for Respondent. … CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 2nd JULY, 2026 P.C.:- FIRST APPEAL Nos. 676 OF 2017 and 675 OF 2017 :- 1. Heard Mr. D. R. Korde, learned AGP for the Appellants/State. By consent of the learned AGP, the matters are taken up for final 2026:BHC-AUG:27369 2 of 4 911-FA.676.2017 hearing at the admission stage. 2. By the present appeals, the Appellants/State are aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 17.03.2016 and 29.01.2016 passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna, in L.A.R. Nos.337 of 2013 and 788 of 2011, whereby the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer has been enhanced. 3. Learned AGP submits that the acquired land was acquired for Percolation Tank No.4. He submits that, having regard to the nature and quality of the land and the material available on record before the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO), the acquired land was rightly treated as dry crop land and compensation at the rate of Rs.710/- per R was awarded. 4. Being dissatisfied with the said award, the Claimants sought a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, contending that the compensation awarded by the SLAO was inadequate. Learned AGP submits that the Claimants failed to establish that the acquired land was irrigated land. However, solely on the basis of the Claimants' contention, the learned Reference Court treated the acquired land as irrigated land and enhanced the compensation to Rs.4,000/- per R. It is, therefore, contended that, in the absence of cogent evidence, the finding recorded by the learned Reference Court that the acquired land was irrigated land deserves to be set aside. It is 3 of 4 911-FA.676.2017 further submitted that the learned Reference Court has awarded interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act from the date of taking possession, which is contrary to the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari, reported in 2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457. 5. Despite service, none appears on behalf of the Respondents/Claimants. 6. I have heard the learned AGP for the Appellants and perused the record as well as the judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court. There is no dispute that the acquired land was acquired for Percolation Tank No.4. The SLAO treated the acquired land as dry crop land and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.710/- per R. However, before the learned Reference Court, the Claimants produced the 7/12 extract, which clearly shows the existence of a well in the acquired Gat number. The Claimants also adduced oral evidence that they were cultivating crops such as sugarcane and wheat. Even assuming that the crop pattern is not taken into consideration, the existence of a well in the acquired land itself indicates that the land was irrigated. Therefore, the learned Reference Court rightly held that the acquired land was irrigated land and accordingly enhanced the compensation. 4 of 4 911-FA.676.2017 7. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court, except to clarify the entitlement of the Claimants to interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in accordance with law. Hence, I pass the following order:- O R D E R (i) The first appeals are partly allowed. (ii) The Claimants are entitled to receive interest under Section 34 of the Act, be calculated from the date of award passed by the SLAO as enunciated by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra). (iii) Rest of the judgment and award dated 17.03.2016 and 29.01.2016 passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna, in L.A.R. Nos.337 of 2013 and 788 of 2011 remain unaltered. (iv) Pending civil applications, if any, are also disposed of. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef