( 1 ) 911 FA 1870 OF 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 911 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1870 OF 2020 RAKHAMAJI RAMRAO GAIKWAD VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASTRA AND OTHERS ... Mr. D. M. Kakade, Advocate for Appellant Mr. K. B. Jadhavar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - State Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, Advocate for Respondent No.3/Acquiring Body … CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATE : 19.08.2026 PER COURT :- . At the instance of learned Advocates for respective parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 31.12.2002, passed by learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Jalna, in Land Acquisition Reference No.91 of 2000, the appellant is before this court seeking enhancement in the compensation. 3. Mr. D. M. Kakde, learned advocate for the appellant would submit that the subject-matter land of the appellant was Dry land. He would submit that this Court vide order dated 20.07.2026, partly allowed First Appeal No.1192 of 2018 (Shivaji Ashroba Chavan Vs. State of Maharashtra and others). He would submit that the rates determined for different category of lands and enhancement by this court vide the said order dated 20.07.2026 are perfectly applicable to the present case also. He would submit that the sale instances which are relied upon by the appellant during the trial of the 2026:BHC-AUG:37918 ( 2 ) 911 FA 1870 OF 2020 reference are the same sale instances cited by the appellant in First Appeal No.1192 of 2018. 4. With the able assistance of Mr. Kakde, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Sonpawale learned advocate for the respondent – acquiring body, I have gone through the text of the order dated 20.07.2026 (supra). Paragraphs 4, 5 and the operative order of the said order reads thus:- “4. There is no dispute that, the land of the Appellant was acquired for the Nimna Dudhna Project. The orders in the said First Appeals go to show that, the lands from different village i.e. Kedarwadi were acquired for the same purpose i.e. Nimnda Dudhna Project. From the papers and the said orders, it is clear that, the said villages i.e. Wanjola and Kedarwadi are situated in Mantha Taluka District Jalna.This goes to show that, the lands which were the subject matter of those Appeals and the land which is the subject matter of the case at hand were acquired for the same purposes. The observations of in the common judgment dated 22.08.2008 passed by the learned District Judge-2, Jalna in a group of Land Reference Applications, one of which was L.A.R. No. 183 of 2000 shows that, the said References were for the compensation towards the lands which were acquired for the same Nimna Dudhna Project and the finding recorded therein was that, village Wanjola is adjacent to village Kedarwadi. It is settled position in view of the aforesaid decision in Ali Mohammad Beigh (supra) that, when cluster of villages are acquired for the same project, the land owners whose lands are acquired are entitled for the same monetary benefits. There is nothing to show that, there is any reason not to grant same rate to the Appellant. 5. Perusal of the orders of this Court shows that, this Court enhanced the rate for the dry land to Rs. 2400/- per R, for seasonally irrigated land Rs. 3600/- per R and for perennially irrigated land Rs. 4800/- per R. Considering all the aspects of the matter and as stated above, the Appellant is entitled for the same rate for his acquired land. However, the Appellant shall not be entitled for the statutory benefits and interest for the delayed period and the same shall be calculated from the date of final award in view of the law laid down in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari, 2016 (3) Mh.L.J.457. Hence, the following order: O R D E R (1) The First Appeal is partly allowed. (2) The Appellant/Claimant shall be entitled for the enhanced compensation for his acquired lands as follows: (i) For Dry land Rs.2,400/- per R (ii) For Semi irrigated land Rs.3600/- per R. ( 3 ) 911 FA 1870 OF 2020 (iii) for Perennially irrigated land Rs.4800/- per R. (3) The Appellant shall be entitled to interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act as per the Full Bench Judgment in the case of Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra). (4) The Appellant shall not be entitled for the interest and statutory benefits for the delayed period. (5) The Award of the Reference Court stands modified accordingly. (6) The Claimant shall deposit the deficit Court fees. (7) Record and Proceedings be sent back to the learned Reference Court. (8) Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.” 5. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that the appellant has already stated and maintains the word that the land of the appellant was dry land and it shall fetch the enhancement at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per R, as is granted by this court in the cited matter. He would further submit that the part of interest would be governed by the law laid down by the full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari, 2016 (3) Mh.L.J.457. 6. Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, learned counsel for the respondent – acquiring body, after cautiously going through the contents of the order would submit that the appellant must not be held entitled for the interest and the statutory benefit for the delayed period. Further, there is nothing on record to point out as to why the subject-matter land and reference of the appellant would be held different than the subject-matter property and reference made by this Court in First Appeal No.1192 of 2018. 7. For the reasons recorded above, I find that the appellant shall be entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.2,400/- per R considering the quality of land i.e. dry land, as is held in the cited case. In view of this, I deem ( 4 ) 911 FA 1870 OF 2020 it appropriate to allow this appeal partly in the following terms:- O R D E R I. The First Appeal is partly allowed. II. The Appellant/Claimant shall be entitled to enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.2,400/- per R for dry land. III. The Appellant shall be entitled to interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act as per the Full Bench Judgment in the case of Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra). IV. The Appellant shall not be entitled for the interest and statutory benefits for the delayed period. V. The Award of the Reference Court stands modified accordingly. VI. The Appellant shall deposit the deficit Court fees, if any. VII. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the learned Reference Court. VIII. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. IX. The acquiring body shall deposit the enhanced amount in this court within three months from today. [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.] PRW