Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 12499 (BOM)

JAGANATH YELJI PATIL THR GPA HOLDER NARENDRA JAGANATH PATIL v. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (M.P. D) DHULE AND ANR

FA/121/2023 · 2026-09-21

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 46 FA 121 OF 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 46 FIRST APPEAL NO. 121 OF 2023 JAGANATH YELJI PATIL THR GPA HOLDER NARENDRA JAGANATH PATIL VERSUS THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (M.P. D) DHULE AND ANR ... Mr. G. M. More Kumar, Advocate for Appellant Mr. R. K. Ingole, AGP for Respondent No.1 – State Mr. A. D. Pawar, Advocate for Respondent No.2 … CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATED : 21st September 2026 P.C. :- . Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 03.03.2010 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Dhule in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.88 of 2004, the appellant is before this Court seeking enhancement in the compensation. 2. Considering the very short controversy in the matter and in the light of the earlier order passed by this Court on 02.12.2013 in First Appeal No.1376 of 2013 with connected First Appeals, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the present First Appeal at the admission stage. 2026:BHC-AUG:43178 2 46 FA 121 OF 2023 3. It is not in dispute that the appellant's land was acquired in the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondent authorities with a notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act published in the Government Gazette dated 15.07.1999. Although the Special Land Acquisition Officer divided the appellant's land into three categories, the Reference Court, however, treated the entire land holding as semi-irrigated land and granted compensation. Feeling dissatisfied with the inadequate compensation, the claimant has lodged this First Appeal. 4. During the course of argument, Mr. G. M. More, learned Advocate for the appellant apprised me with an order dated 02.12.2013 referred supra. He would submit that the said matter arises out of the same land acquisition proceedings which is the subject matter of the present appeal. 5. Mr. More further submits that this Court, after considering the matter in its entirety, fixed the rate of Rs.2,00,000/- per hectare for dry land, Rs.3,00,000/- per hectare for seasonally irrigated land and Rs.4,00,000/- per hectare for irrigated land. He would submit that in the light of the findings recorded by the Reference Court, the appellant's 3 46 FA 121 OF 2023 land is semi-irrigated land and, therefore, the compensation may be fixed at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per hectare. He also cites another order passed by this Court on 28.07.2026 in First Appeal No.1371 of 2020 on the same line, in the light of the first order cited supra. 6. Mr. A. D. Pawar, learned Advocate for the acquiring body in all fairness would agree with the submissions on facts. Mr. Pawar submits that in fact, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has divided the appellant's land into three categories. However, the Reference Court has considered the land as semi-irrigated land. Thus, he would submit that the said factor be considered while disposing of this First Appeal. 7. True that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has divided the appellant's land into three categories. The Reference Court has treated the entire land as semi-irrigated land. The acquiring body has not challenged that finding by filing any First Appeal. 8. In view of this although, to some extent, Mr. Pawar's contention seems to be arguable however, the same cannot be considered for the reasons recorded above. 4 46 FA 121 OF 2023 9. In view of the above, I pass following order : O R D E R I. The First Appeal is partly allowed. II. The appellant is entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.3,00,000/- per hectare for the acquired land. III. The acquiring body shall deposit the enhanced compensation before this Court within a period of six (6) months from today, together with accrued interest thereon. IV. The appellant shall be entitled to interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the L.A. Act in terms of law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari reported in 2016 AIR (Bom.) 141. V. The appellant shall not be entitled to interest and statutory benefit for delayed period. VI. The appellant shall be entitled to withdraw the amount deposited with interest, without making any separate application for withdrawal. VII. While depositing the enhancement, any amount already deposited shall be adjusted. VIII. The appellant shall pay the requisite additional court fees on the enhanced 5 46 FA 121 OF 2023 compensation, if applicable. IX. Save and except above, impugned Judgment and Award passed by Reference Court shall stand unaltered. X. The Record and Proceedings be sent back to Reference Court. XI. Award be drawn up accordingly. XII. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ) PRW