939.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 939 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2882 OF 2019 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14968 OF 2015 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4155 OF 2024 IN FA/2882/2019 1) Vijaykumar Ramkishan Ugile Age 47 years, Occ Agril, 2) Ramkishan Madhavrao Ugile Died through LR's 2A) Narsabai w/o. Ramkishan Ugile Age 71 years, Occ Agril, 2B) Rajkumar s/o. Ramkishan Ugile Age 47 years, Occ Agril, 2C) Jijabai w/o. Tukaram Dandime Age major, Occ Agril, 3) Narsabai w/o. Ramkishan Ugile Age 71 years, Occ Agril, All R/o.Borol, Taluka Deoni District Latur. … Appellants (Orig. Claimants) VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through The Collector, Latur. 2) The Executive Engineer, Latur Medium Project, Latur. … Respondents ….. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2883 OF 2019 1) Gopal s/o. Tukaram Pate Age 52 years, Occ Agril, R/o.Borol, Taluka Deoni District Latur. …Appellant (Orig. Claimant) 1 2026:BHC-AUG:23904 939.odt VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through The Collector, Latur. 2) The Executive Engineer, Latur Medium Project, Latur. … Respondents ….. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2884 OF 2019 1) Rajkumar s/o. Ramkishan Ugile Age 47 years, Occ Agril, 2) Narsabai w/o. Ramkishan Ugile Age 71 years, Occ Agril, All R/o.Borol, Taluka Deoni District Latur. … Appellants (Orig. Claimants) VERSUS 1) The State Of Maharashtra, Through The Collector, Latur. 2) The Executive Engineer, Latur Medium Project, Latur. … Respondents ______________________________________________________________ Appearance : Mr. H. B. Nandagavale a/w Mr. Ashwin V. Sakolkar h/f Mr. V. G. Sakolkar, Advocate for the Appellant/s in all Appeals Mr. N. D. Raje, AGP for Respondent No.1 – State in all Appeals Mr. Anand Chaware, Advocate for Respondent No.2 in all Appeals ______________________________________________________________ CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. DATE : 17.06.2026 2 939.odt COMMON JUDGMENT : 1. These are the First Appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the L. A. Act’) by the Original Claimants for enhanced compensation for acquisition of their lands for the construction of ‘Borol Storage Tank’ at Village Borol, Taluka – Deoni, District – Latur. 2. Since the Land Reference Application Nos.483/2007, 484/2007 and 485/2007 are decided by a common Judgment and Award dated 15.04.2008 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedpur Camp at Udgir, these Appeals are decided by this Common Judgment. 3. Heard the learned Advocate for the – Claimants, learned Advocate for the Acquiring Body and the learned AGP for the Respondents – State. With their assistance, perused the papers on record. 4. The chart below shows the necessary and undisputed aspects of the matters :- First Appeal filed by Claimants LAR No. Gat No. Area Compensation awarded by LAO Ref. Court Awarded F.A.No.2882/2019 483/2007 127 128 4 H 94 R 1045/- per R (Jirayat) 2090/- per R (Bagayat) 3500/- per R (Jirayat) 5,250/- Per R (Bagayat) 3 939.odt F.A.No.2884/2019 484/2007 127 128 4 H 95 R -do- -do- F.A.No.2883/2019 485/2007 128 86 R -do- -do- 1 Acquisition purpose For construction Borol Storage Tank, Borol, Deoni (K) Sindhikamath, Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur. 2 Notification u/s 4 Gazzette Dt. 03/02/2005 Village 17/02/2005 3 Notification u/s 6 Gazzette Dt. 14/07/2005 Village 11/07/2005 4 Possession 07/02/2004, 14/02/2004, 27/02/2004, 14/09/2004, 23/10/2004 5 Claim Claimed at Rs. 10,000/- per R 6 L.A.O. Award 22/05/2006 7 L.A.O. Awarded Rs.1045/- per R for Jirayat Land. Rs.2090/- per R for Bagayat Land. 8 Reference Reference filed by Claimant 9 Reference Court Award Dt.15/04/2008 10 Reference Court Awarded Rs.3500/- per R for Jirayat Land. Rs.7,000/- per R for irrigated land. 5. The Appellants are claiming enhancement on the basis of the Judgment 25.03.2026 passed by this Court in group of First Appeals and Cross-Objection therein, one of which is First Appeal No.3028/2011 with Cross-Objection No.247/2025. According to the learned Advocate for the Appellants, the Appellants stand on the same footing as that of the Claimants in both Cross-objections, 4 939.odt wherein, this Court enhanced compensation @ Rs.6,516/- per R for the dry lands and the rate of Rs.13,032/- per R. for the irrigated lands. He placed on record a copy of the said decision passed by this Court. 6. The learned Advocate for the Acquiring Body submits that, though this Court has enhanced the compensation to the similarly placed Claimants, the Appellants will have to show the similarity between their lands and the lands, which were the subject matter of those Appeals and Cross-objections. He does not dispute the aforesaid Judgment of this Court in the aforesaid Appeals and Cross-objections. 7. It is submitted by the learned AGP that, appropriate orders be passed. 8. Perusal of the said Judgment of this Court shows that, the acquired lands of the Claimants therein were situated in the Village – Borol, Deoni (Kh), Sindhikamath, Taluka – Deoni, District – Latur and the said lands were acquired for the same project, i.e. construction of ‘Borol Storage Tank’. Undisputedly, the Appellants’ lands were situated in the very same Village, i.e. Borol 5 939.odt and were acquired for the very same project. The only different is that of the issuance of Sections 4 and 6 notifications under the L. A. Act. In the present Appeals, Section 4 notification was published in village on 17.02.2005 and Section 6 notification was published on 11.07.2005; whereas in the disposed off Appeals, Section 4 notification was published in Gazzette on 19.08.2004 and Section 6 notification was published in Gazzette on 24.03.2005. This shows that, the notification in the said disposed off Appeals, was prior to the notifications, which were issued in the present matters. There is no dispute in respect of the quality of the lands of the Appellants. Some of the lands are held to be dry lands and some are held to be irrigated lands. It is needless to state that, there cannot be any sub-categorization for the dry lands and for the irrigated lands. This being the position, and nothing to show that, the Appellants are not entitled for the said rate, on the ground of parity, the Appellants would be entitled for the rate of Rs.6,516/- per R for the dry lands and Rs.13,032/- per R. for the irrigated lands. 9. The Judgment passed by the learned Reference Court shows that, the separate compensation for the trees came to be determined. But, this Court in the aforesaid Judgment determined 6 939.odt the compensation for the trees to the extent of 60% of the valuation report, which includes the earlier amount of compensation awarded by the L.A.O and the learned Reference Court. This being so, on the ground of parity, the Appellants would be entitled for the same rate of compensation for the trees. 10. In view of the above observations, no more discussion is required. Hence, the following order : ORDER [a] First Appeal No.2882/2019, First Appeal No.2883/2019 and First Appeal No.2884/2019 are partly allowed. [b] The Appellants would be entitled for the rate of Rs.6,516/- per R. for the dry lands and the rate of Rs.13,032/- per R. for irrigated lands. [c] The Appellants would be entitled for compensation to the extent of 60% of the valuation report, which includes the earlier amount of compensation awarded by the L.A.O and the learned Reference Court. [d] The Appellants would be entitled for the interest from the date of final Award. [e] The Appellants shall not be entitled for the interest and the statutory benefits for the delayed period, if any, condoned by this Court. 7 939.odt [f] The Award passed by learned Reference Court in LAR Nos.483/2007, 484/2007 and 485/2007 stand modified accordingly. [g] The Appellants shall pay deficit court fee, if any, within a period of four (04) weeks. [h] The Acquiring Body to deposit the enhanced compensation amount along with statutory benefits and interest, within a period of six (06) months from today in the office of this Court. [i] Appeals stand disposed of accordingly. [j] Pending civil applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] Sameer/June-2026 8