(1) fa-212-2017.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 212 OF 2017 DNYANOBA MARUTI KAVHALE DIED THRO. L.RS. YAMUNABAI DNYANOBA KAVHALE AND ANOTHER VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ... Mr. Deepak M. Kakade, Advocate for Appellants. Mr. V. M. Lomte, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms. Sunita D. Shelke, Advocate for Respondent No.3. … CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 23rd JANUARY, 2026. P.C.:- 1. The present Appeal takes exception to judgment and award dated 22.08.2008 passed by District Judge, Jalna in Land Acquisition Reference No.207/2000 and seeks enhancement of compensation granted under Land Acquisition Act. 2. The appellants were owners and possessions of land Survey/Gut No.80/2, 41/2A admeasuring 2H 54R situated at village Kedarwakdi, Taluka Mantha, District Jalna. The appellants’ land has been acquired for purpose of “Nimnna Dudhana Project, Selu”. On 31.03.1999, Special Land Acquisition Officer passed Award under Section 11 of Land Acquisition Act and granted compensation @ Rs.655/- per R for dry land and Rs.982.50/- per R to semi irrigated land. The appellants made Land Acquisition Reference under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act for 2026:BHC-AUG:4403 (2) fa-212-2017.odt enhancement of compensation. The Reference Court considered entire land of appellants in category of dry land and granted enhanced compensation @ Rs.1200/- per R. Hence, this Appeal for enhancement of compensation. 3. Mr. Kakade, learned Advocate appearing for appellants would submit that as per Award Statement ‘E’, appellants’ land from Survey No.41/2A has been categorized in two parts as partially dry and partially seasonally irrigated. The land area 63R is categorized as dry land and land area 90R is categorized as seasonally irrigated. He would further invite attention of this Court to Schedule-16 i.e. joint measurement report, wherein it can be seen that appellants’ land was irrigated by Well water. He would, therefore, urge that Reference Court erroneously categorized appellants’ entire acquired land Gut/Survey No.41/2A as dry land. 4. Mr. Kakade would further submit that in First Appeal No.649/2013 (Dattatraya s/o Rambhau Late and Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others) alongwith companion matters this Court passed common judgment pertaining to same acquisition, wherein dry lands are given compensation @ Rs.2400/- per R, semi irrigated lands are given compensation @ Rs.3600/- per R and fully irrigated lands are given compensation @ Rs.4800/- per R. He would further rely upon order dated 05.01.2026 passed in (3) fa-212-2017.odt First Appeal No.1896/2021 pertaining to selfsame common judgment, which is subject matter of this Appeal, wherein this Court followed rate fixed in First Appeal No.649/2013 alongwith companion matters. He would, therefore, urge that appellants be granted compensation as per bifurcation of dry and semi irrigated land depicted in Award Statement ‘E’. 5. Ms. Sunita Shelke, learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.3 do not dispute factual and legal aspects pressed into service by appellants. 6. Having considered submissions advanced by learned Advocates appearing for respective parties, it can be observed that in light of rates fixed for lands acquired for “Nimnna Dudhana Project, Selu” under common judgment passed by this Court in First Appeal No.649/2013 alongwith companion matters and subsequent judgment in First Appeal No.1896/2021, it is clear that this Court has approved market rate of acquired land as Rs.2400/- per R for dry land and Rs.3600/- per R for semi irrigated land. 7. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Kakade, learned Advocate appearing for appellants, Award Statement ‘E’ clearly depicts that appellants’ land from Gut No.41/2A was acquired, which was partially dry and partially seasonally irrigated. The appellants would be entitled for appropriate compensation at enhanced rate for acquired land as per aforesaid classification. Similarly, interest (4) fa-212-2017.odt awarded by Reference Court needs to be corrected in accordance with law laid down in case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari1. 8. In that view of matter, there is no difficulty in holding that appellants are entitled for compensation @ Rs.2400 per R for dry land and Rs.3600/- per R for semi irrigated land, as classified in Award Statement ‘E’. Hence, following order is passed: ORDER a. The First Appeal is partly allowed. b. The appellants shall be entitled fo compensation @ Rs.2400/- per R for portion of dry land and Rs.3600/- per R for semi irrigated portion of land as per Award Statement ‘E’. c. The appellants shall be entitled to interest under Sections 28 and 34 of Land Acquisition Act as per Full Bench judgment in case of Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra). d. The appellants shall not be entitled for interest and statutory benefit for delayed period. e. Save and except above, impugned judgment and award passed by Reference Court shall stand unaltered. f. The appellants shall pay deficit Court fees, if any. g. The Record and Proceeding be sent back to Reference Court. 1 2016 AIR (Bom.) 141. (5) fa-212-2017.odt h. Award be drawn up accordingly. (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE Devendra/January-2026