1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. FIRST APPEAL NO.1104 OF 2019 The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur Thr Rajendra Gurappa Hulsure and Anr .. Appellants Versus Ganpati Rajaram Mane (Since deceased) Through his LRs Govindrao and Anr .. Respondents ….. AND FIRST APPEAL NO.1103 OF 2019 The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur Thr Rajendra Gurappa Hulsure and Anr .. Appellants Versus Bhagwat Maruti Suryawanshi (Since deceased) Through his LRs Sushilabai and Others .. Respondents ….. AND FIRST APPEAL NO.1099 OF 2019 The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur Thr Rajendra Gurappa Hulsure and Anr .. Appellants Versus Venkat Maruti Suryavanshi .. Respondent ….. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13791/2021 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1099 OF 2019 ….. 2026:BHC-AUG:41988 2 AND FIRST APPEAL NO.1100 OF 2019 The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur Thr Rajendra Gurappa Hulsure and Anr .. Appellants Versus Angad Dnyanoba Mane .. Respondent ….. AND FIRST APPEAL NO.1101 OF 2019 The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur Thr Rajendra Gurappa Hulsure and Anr .. Appellants Versus Sambhaji Shrirang Suryawanshi (Died) Thr LRs Krushna and Others .. Respondents ….. AND FIRST APPEAL NO.1102 OF 2019 The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur Thr Rajendra Gurappa Hulsure and Anr .. Appellants Versus Govind Maruti Suryawanshi .. Respondent ….. In all the matters : Shri. Shyam C. Arora, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. V. D. Gunale, Advocate for the Respondents Shri. S. N. Kendre, AGP for the State. ….. 3 CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. Dated : SEPTEMBER 07, 2026 FINAL ORDER :- . Heard Shri. Arora, the learned Advocate for the Appellants - Acquiring Body and Shri. V. D. Gunale, the learned Advocate for the Respondents – Claimants. 2. The learned Advocate for the Respondents–Claimants has tendered across the Bar a copy containing necessary particulars in respect of the First Appeals. The same is taken on record and marked Exhibit ‘A’ for the purpose of identification. The particulars set out in Exhibit ‘A’ are reproduced below: FA NO. LAR NO. SUR VEY NO. ADM AREA SLAO AWARD REF COURT AWARD CLAIMED RATE 1099/19 305/05 6 15-R 1,71,000/- Per Hectare 2,00,000/- Per Acre 1,50,000/- for Dry Land 3,00,000/- per Acre for irrigated land 1101/19 165/06 10 45-R 1,71,000/- Per Hectare 2,00,000/- Per Acre 1,50,000/- for Dry Land 3,00,000/- per Acre for irrigated land 1100/19 168/05 25 32-R 1,71,000/- Per Hectare 2,00,000/- Per Acre 1,50,000/- for Dry Land 3,00,000/- per Acre for irrigated land 1102/19 172/05 6 25-R 1,71,000/- Per Hectare 2,00,000/- Per Acre 1,50,000/- for Dry Land 3,00,000/- per Acre for irrigated land 1104/19 176/05 26 28-R 1,71,000/- Per Hectare 2,00,000/- Per Acre 1,50,000/- for Dry Land 3,00,000/- per Acre for irrigated land 1103/19 401/06 25 30-R 1,71,000/- Per Hectare 2,00,000/- Per Acre 1,50,000/- for Dry Land 3,00,000/- per Acre for irrigated land 4 3. Mr. Arora, the learned Advocate for the Appellants / Acquiring Body submits that being aggrieved by the excessive quantum of compensation granted by the learned Reference Court, the Appellant / Acquiring Body has filed these First Appeals. He submits that the evidence tendered by the Respondents - Claimants before the learned Reference Court was insufficient to enhance the compensation, however the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation. 4. Shri. Gunale, the learned Advocate for the Respondents – Claimants submits that the SLAO determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,71,000/- per Hectare. The learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation from Rs.1,71,000/- per Hectare to Rs.2,00,000/- per Acre. The enhancement by the learned Reference Court is within four times the rate determined by the SLAO. There is policy decision by the Government of Maharashtra by way of Government Resolution dated 03.11.2016 and Corrigendum dated 23.02.2017, by which decision is taken not to challenge the Award under the L.A. Act wherein the enhancement is up to four (4) times and the subject matter is covered by the said policy decision. He submits that, the cause in the Appeals does not survive any longer. 5. Mr. Arora, the learned Advocate for the Appellants - Acquiring Body graciously agrees to this submission on facts that the enhancement granted by the learned Reference Court is within four times the rate 5 granted by the SLAO. However, he submits that the interest part ought to be governed by the Judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra V/s Kailash Shiva Rangari reported in 2016 (4) ALL MR 513. He further submits that the Acquiring Body has deposited the entire payable award amount together with interest in this Court. He also submits that some part of deposited amount is already withdrawn by the Respondents - Claimants. He further submits that after calculating the interest as per Kailash Shiva Rangari’s (supra) case, the Acquiring Body be permitted to withdraw the excess amount, if any. 6. Having regard to the aforesaid, the Appeals can be disposed of at the stage of admission itself. Hence, the following order. ORDER (A) In view of the Government Resolution dated 03.11.2016, Corrigendum dated 23.02.2017 and enhancement proportion, the First Appeals are partly allowed. (B) The challenge raised by the Appellants–Acquiring Body to the enhancement in compensation granted by the learned Reference Court is rejected. (C) The interest part shall be governed as per Judgment of the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra). (D) The Respondents - Claimants are permitted to withdraw the balance amount deposited by the Appellants - Acquiring Body in this Court, along with the accrued interest thereon, if any. 6 (E) Needless to mention that after calculating the interest as per the Kailash Shiva Rangari’s (supra) case the excess amount, if any, shall be returned to the Appellants - Acquiring Body along with interest. (F) Pending Civil Applications stand disposed of. ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ) GGP