FAs3277&3278-19 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 3277 OF 2019 Kashinath Muktaji Wahatule R/o Babhulgaon Tq. Sillod Dist. Aurangabad ... Appellant VERSUS 1 The State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector, Aurangabad 2 Special Land Acquisition Officer, Collector Office, Aurangabad ... Respondents 3 The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division No.1 Godawari Marathwada Patbandhare Vikas Mahamandal, Sinchan Bhavan, Jalna Road, Aurangabad. AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 3278 OF 2019 Raghunath Muktaji Wahatule, Deceased, Through LRs. ... Appellant 1 Purnabai Raghunath Wahatule 2 Kausabai Uttam Kharat 3 Kasabai Sanjay Kakade 4 Sudhakar Raghunath Wahatule 5 Ranjana Kashinath Kapade 6 Kailas Rathunath Wahatule 7 Sukhdeo Rathunath Wahatule All R/o Babhulgaon Tq. Sillod Dist. Aurangabad VERSUS 1 of 6 2026:BHC-AUG:26719 FAs3277&3278-19 1 The State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector, Aurangabad 2 Special Land Acquisition Officer, Collector Office, Aurangabad ... Respondents 3 The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division No.1 Godawari Marathwada Patbandhare Vikas Mahamandal, Sinchan Bhavan, Jalna Road, Aurangabad. Mr. N. J. Pahune Patil, Advocate for the Appellants Mrs. M. L. Sangit, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2/State Mr. B. R. Survase, Advocate for Respondent No.3 Acquiring Body CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. Dated : 7th July, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Since both these Appeals arise out of the common Judgment and Award dated 02.02.2015 in two Reference Applications in respect of the same acquisition proceedings and common submissions are made, both these Appeals are decided by this common judgment. In First Appeal No. 3277/2019, the acquired land was 1 Hectare 50 R out of Gat No. 142, situated at Babhulgaon Tq. Sillod District Aurangabad and Reference Application No. is 298/2008. In First Appeal No. 3278/2019, the acquired land was 1 Hectare 80 R out of Gat No. 140, situated at Babhulgaon Tq. Sillod District Aurangabad and Reference Application No. is 259/2008. 2. The above referred lands came to be acquired for the Nillod 2 of 6 FAs3277&3278-19 Major Irrigation Project. The Section 4 Notification of the Land Acquisition Act ( L. A. Act) was issued on 05.12.2005 and the final Award was declared on 03.08.2006. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (‘the SLAO’ for short) determined the rate at Rs.1100/- per R considering the lands as dry lands. Being not satisfied with the compensation determined by the SLAO, the Claimants preferred the above referred Reference Applications for enhanced compensation. Common evidence was laid by the Claimants. Considering the evidence on record, the learned Reference Court determined the rate at Rs.2000/- per R for the dry lands. The learned Reference Court considered the acquired lands as seasonally irrigated lands and determined the rate at Rs.3000/- per R. 3. Heard the learned Advocate for the Claimants, learned Advocate for the Acquiring Body and the learned AGP for the State. With their assistance, perused the papers on record. (A) It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Claimants that, the Claimants have brought on record the two (2) Sale Deeds below Exh. 19 and Exh.20. However, the learned Reference Court considered the sale instance below Exh. 19, which was from the same village. He further submitted that, though the Award itself speaks that, there were wells in the acquired lands, on the basis of cropping pattern, the learned Reference Court considered the acquired lands as seasonally irrigated lands. He 3 of 6 FAs3277&3278-19 submitted that, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Patil v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon, 2012 (2) MLJ 530, the Claimants are entitled for compensation for their acquired lands by considering them as fully irrigated lands. He further submitted that, the compensation accordingly be enhanced. (B) It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Acquiring Body that, the learned Reference Court has rightly discarded the sale deed below Exh.20 which was from the different village. He submitted that, since the evidence on record shows that the crops taken by the Claimants were not those of fully irrigated lands, the learned Reference Court has rightly considered the cropping pattern and treated the acquired lands as seasonally irrigated lands. He submitted that, no interference is called for with the impugned judgment and awards. (C) The learned AGP supports the contentions of the learned Advocate for the Acquiring Body. 4. Undisputedly, the Claimants relied on two (2) sale instances below Exh. 19 and Exh. 20. Undisputedly, the sale instance below Exh.20 was from the different village Nillod and the sale instance below Exh. 19 was from the same village- Babhulgaon. Thus, no fault can be found with the Reference Court in considering the sale instance 4 of 6 FAs3277&3278-19 below Exh. 19 which was from the same village. The learned Reference Court, on the basis of the cropping pattern, considered the acquired lands as semi irrigated lands. Undisputedly, the Award passed by the learned SLAO shows existence of wells in the acquired lands of the Claimants. The said aspect has been considered by the learned Reference Court as can be seen from the observation in para 13 of the judgment. This being the undisputed position, considering the acquired lands as seasonally irrigated lands solely on the basis of the cropping pattern is against the decision in Chindha Fakira Patil (supra), which has been referred to in the judgment of the learned Reference Court. Thus, the claimants shall be entitled to compensation for the acquired lands by considering them as fully irrigated lands. As there is no challenge to the rate of Rs.2,000/- per R determined by the learned Reference Court for dry land on the basis of the sale instance at Exh.19, the rate for the fully irrigated land would be double the said rate, i.e. Rs.4,000/- per R, as per the settled position under the law. According to the learned Advocate for the Claimants, the claimants shall be entitled for the interest under Section 34 of the L. A. Act as per the decision of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangara, 2016 (3) Mh.L.J.457 which is not disputed. Considering all these aspects of the matter, the Awards passed by the learned Reference Court need interference and compensation needs to be enhanced. Hence, the following order: 5 of 6 FAs3277&3278-19 O R D E R (1) Both the First Appeals are partly allowed. (2) The Appellants/Claimants shall be entitled for the compensation at the market rate of Rs.4000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only) per R for their acquired lands being fully irrigated lands. (3) The Claimants shall be entitled for the statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation including interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act as per the decision of this Court in Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra). (4) The Claimants shall not be entitled to the interest for the delayed period. (5) The Claimants shall deposit the deficit court fees. (6) No order as to costs. (4) Record and Proceedings be sent back to the learned Reference Court. (NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.) JPChavan 6 of 6