1 of 5 920-FA.1849.2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 920 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1849 OF 2017 LAXMAN DEORAO SAKALKAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS ... Mr. Mahesh V. Ghatge, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for Respondent-State. Mr. Mahesh C. Swami, Advocate for Respondent No.3. ... AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3825 OF 2026 IN FA/1849/2017 LAXMAN DEORAO SAKALKAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS … Mr. Mahesh V. Ghatge, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for Respondent-State. Mr. Mahesh C. Swami, Advocate for Respondent No.3. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 2nd JULY, 2026 P.C.:- 1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. By the present appeal, the Appellant has challenged the judgment and award dated 25.03.2017 passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna in L.A.R. No.467 of 2011. 3. The original claimant sought enhancement of compensation in respect of the land acquired for the Dhudhana Minor Irrigation 2026:BHC-AUG:26127 2 of 5 920-FA.1849.2017 Project. 4. Mr. Mahesh V. Ghatge, learned Advocate for the Appellant/Claimant invited my attention to the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, particularly page No.133 of the paper- book. He submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer himself recorded that the acquired land was irrigated land and accordingly awarded separate compensation for the well and the pipeline. He further invited my attention to the 7/12 extracts exhibited at page Nos.49 to 53 of the paper-book, which clearly indicate the existence of a well. The said extracts were duly proved before the Reference Court. He further submitted that the crop pattern reflected cultivation of sugarcane, cotton, wheat and other crops, which clearly establishes that the land was irrigated. According to him, the learned Reference Court failed to assign any reasons for holding that only 13 R of the acquired land was irrigated and for treating the remaining land as dry crop land. Such a finding appears to have been recorded merely on the submissions made on behalf of the acquiring body without any supporting evidence. He further relied upon the judgment of this Court in a batch of First Appeals arising out of the same acquisition notification and pertaining to the same project, wherein compensation at the rate of Rs.8,850/- per R was awarded for irrigated land. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed. 3 of 5 920-FA.1849.2017 5. Per contra, Mr. Swami, learned Advocate appearing for Respondent No.3–Acquiring Body, vehemently opposed the appeal. He submitted that merely because separate compensation was awarded for the well and pipeline, it cannot automatically be inferred that the entire acquired land was irrigated. According to him, the claimant failed to adduce cogent evidence before the Reference Court to establish that the whole land was irrigated. He further submitted that, on the basis of the report of the Superintendent of Land Records, it was contended before the Reference Court that only 13 R of the acquired land was irrigated. Therefore, the learned Reference Court rightly treated the remaining land as dry crop land while determining the compensation. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the record and proceedings. There is no dispute that 4 Hectares 50 R from Gat No.5A and 1 Hectare 82 R from Gat No.39/B were acquired for the project. 7. I have also gone through the exhibited copies of the 7/12 extracts, which clearly show the existence of a well in the acquired land. Further, the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer reveals that separate compensation was awarded for the well as well as the pipeline. This factual aspect is not disputed by the respondents. 8. Once the Special Land Acquisition Officer himself granted 4 of 5 920-FA.1849.2017 separate compensation for the well and the pipeline, there can hardly be any doubt that the acquired land was irrigated. The finding recorded by the learned Reference Court that only 13 R of the acquired land was irrigated is unsupported by any cogent evidence. Although Mr. Swami sought to rely upon a report of the Superintendent of Land Records, no such report was proved in evidence before the Reference Court by examining any competent witness. In the absence of any admissible evidence, such a contention cannot be accepted. 9. The crop pattern reflected in the 7/12 extracts also shows cultivation of sugarcane, cotton, banana and vegetables, which unmistakably indicates that the acquired land was under irrigation. 10. Moreover, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, while deciding a batch of First Appeals arising out of the very same acquisition notification, village and project, has already determined the market value of irrigated land at Rs.8,850/- per R. In the interest of maintaining consistency, the Appellant is entitled to the same rate. 11. Accordingly, I hold that the acquired land is irrigated land and that the Appellant is entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.8,850/- per R, together with all statutory benefits available under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Hence, I pass the following order:- O R D E R (i) In the result, the present appeal is allowed. 5 of 5 920-FA.1849.2017 (ii) The judgment and award dated 25.03.2017 passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna in L.A.R. No.467 of 2011 is modified to the extent that the acquired land shall be treated as irrigated land, and the Appellant shall be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.8,850/- per R, along with all consequential statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act. (iii) Rest of the order passed by the learned Reference Court stands confirmed. (iv) Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef