FA 1561/17 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 36 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1561 OF 2017 MANISHA NITIN KABRA VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. A.B. Kale AGP for Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr. B.A. Shinde Advocate for Respondent 4 : Mr. S.S. Chillarge ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. Dated : July 27, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Admit. 2. As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 2006, heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. The present appeal arises out of the Judgment and Award dated 17.01.2017 passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalgaon, in LAR No. 3/2010. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant/original claimant has tendered across the Bar a copy of the judgment and order dated 14.7.2026 passed by this Court in FA No. 3416/2016 (Manoj Govinda Patil Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.) and other connected matters. He submits that the land of the present appellant was acquired from the same village, for the same public purpose, and under the very same notification as involved in the above appeals. It is, therefore, contended that the controversy involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 14.7.2026 passed in First Appeal No.3416/2016 (supra), and consequently, the present appeal deserves to be disposed of 2026:BHC-AUG:31924 FA 1561/17 2 in terms thereof. The learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. S.S. Chillarge, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 fairly concedes the aforesaid position. 5. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the respective parties, and in view of the admitted position that the controversy involved in the present appeal is identical to the one decided by this court in FA No. 3416/2016 (supra), I see no reason to take a different view. It needs to be mentioned here that the reference court has held the land of the appellant as dry land and has also granted compensation for fruit bearing trees. However, considering the above judgment and order passed in FA No. 3416/2016 (supra) I hold that the land of the appellant is irrigated land as there is existence of well in acquired land and appellant is not entitled to receive compensation for fruit bearing trees. The present appeal, therefore, deserves to be disposed of in terms of the said judgment and order. Hence, the following order: O R D E R (I) The appeal is partly allowed. (II) The claimant is entitled to receive enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.12,97,400/- per H. for Bagayat land and Rs. 3,24,350/- per H. for Pot Kharab land. (III) The claimant shall be entitled to all consequential statutory benefits under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on the enhanced compensation. (IV) The claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount, if any, deposited by the acquiring body along with accrued interest thereon. FA 1561/17 3 (V) The impugned judgment and order of the reference court is modified to that extent. (VI) Rest of the award is maintained. (VII) Claimants to pay deficit court fees, if any, on enhanced amount. (VIII) Pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. ) ssc/