FA 694/17 & Ors. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 13 FIRST APPEAL NO. 694 OF 2017 ABASAHEB GOVINDRAO DESHMUKH VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ... WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 695 OF 2017 DNYANESHWAR RAMRAO DESHMUKH VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS … WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 696 OF 2017 DNYANESHWAR RAMRAO DESHMUKH VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS … Advocate for Appellants : Mr. V.D. Gunale AGP for Respondent/State : Mr. A.D. Wange … CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. Dated : July 27, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Admit. 2. As the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 2011, heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for respective parties. 3. By these appeals, the appellants/original claimants challenge the judgment and award dated 14.9.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nilanga in LAR Nos. 72, 71 and 75 of 2013, respectively. 4. The lands of the claimants admeasuring 1.14 H. from Gat No. 134, 2.11 H. from Gat No. 134 and 95 R. from Gat No. 131 situated at village Shend, Tq. Nilanga, District Latur in respective references were acquired for Dongargaon Barrage on Manjra river. Notification under section 4 of the 2026:BHC-AUG:32470 FA 694/17 & Ors. 2 Land Acquisition Act was published on 22.3.2011. The possession was taken through private negotiations. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) has passed the award on 19.10.2012 and has granted compensation at the rate of Rs.3,24,000/- per H. for Jirayat lands and Rs. 6,48,000/- per H. for Bagayat lands. Being aggrieved, the claimants preferred the above references in which reference court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 13,250/- per R. for dry lands i.e. Rs.13,25,000/- per H. and Rs.26,500/- per R. for irrigated land i.e. Rs.26,50,000/- per H. Being dissatisfied with the compensation granted by the reference court, the present first appeals are filed by the original claimants. 5. The only issue raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/original claimants is that the reference court has wrongly held that only the land admeasuring 1 H. out of land 2.11 H. from Gat No. 134 in LAR No. 71/2013, the land admeasuring 1 H. out of land 1.14 H. from Gat No. 134 in LAR No. 72/2013 and the land admeasuring 80 R. out of land 95 R. from Gat No. 131 in LAR No. 75/2013 are irrigated lands. He submits that these findings were recorded by the reference court only on the ground that the SLAO has recorded those findings. The learned counsel submits that infact the total area of the lands acquired under the above references is irrigated and the reference court ought to have granted compensation by holding that the entire lands involved in references are irrigated and granted compensation accordingly. 6. The learned AGP strongly opposed the prayer of the appellants/claimants and submits that the reference court has recorded the findings correctly on the basis of revenue record and no any evidence is FA 694/17 & Ors. 3 produced by the claimants before the reference court to prove that entire area of the lands under acquisition is irrigated. He further submits that the reference court has granted interest and other statutory benefits from the date of notification under section 4 of the Act and the same is contrary to the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, 2016 (4) Mh.L.J. 457. He therefore prays to dismiss the appeals. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and having gone through the record and proceedings it appears that the reference court has held that the land admeasuring 1 H. out of land 2.11 H. from Gat No. 134 in LAR No. 71/2013, the land admeasuring 1 H. out of land 1.14 H. from Gat No. 134 in LAR No. 72/2013 and the land admeasuring 80 R. out of land 95 R. from Gat No. 131 in LAR No. 75/2013 are irrigated lands and remaining lands are dry lands. The reference court has recorded these findings on the basis of findings recorded by the SLAO. However, on perusal of the record, it is seen that the acquiring body has not led any contra evidence to prove that the remaining lands were dry lands. Hence, I hold that entire area of acquired land is irrigated and and claimants are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs.26,500/- per R. for entire acquired lands. 8. The reference court has granted interest and other statutory benefits from the date of notification under section 4 of the Act which is contrary in view of the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari (supra). Hence, the following order. O R D E R (I) The appeals are partly allowed. FA 694/17 & Ors. 4 (II) The claimants in the respective appeals are entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs.26,500/- per R. for entire acquired lands. (II) The claimants shall be entitled to interest and other statutory benefits strictly in accordance with the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari (supra). (III) The impugned judgment and award is modified accordingly. (IV) The claimants shall pay deficit court fee, if any, on the enhanced amount. (V) Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. ) ssc/