9-FA-435-2014.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 9 FIRST APPEAL NO. 435 OF 2014 The State Of Maharashtra And Others VERSUS Rambhaul Bhimrao Lugade AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 434 OF 2014 The State Of Maharashtra Through Collector And Others VERSUS Haridas Rambhau Lugade And Another WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9086 OF 2012 IN FAST/18022/2012 Haridas Rambhau Lugade And Another VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9087 OF 2012 IN FAST/18028/2012 Rambhau Bhimrao Lugade VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others …… Mr. S.S. Dande, AGP for Appellant for Appellant-State in FAs & for Respondent-State in CAs Mr. B.K. Pawar, Advocate for Respondents/Claimants No.1 and 2 in FAs & for Applicants/Claimants in CAs …… 66 FIRST APPEAL NO. 702 OF 2017 Sitabai Govind Survase (Died) Through L.Rs. Madhav G. Survase/Suryavanshi (Died) Through L.Rs. Shalini And Others VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra 2026:BHC-AUG:46442 9-FA-435-2014.odt 2 …… Mr. R.V. Gunale, Advocate h/f Mr. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for Appellants- Claimants & Mr. A.D.Wange, AGP for Respondent No.1-State …… CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 28 SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATIONS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY 1. The present civil applications are filed by the claimants for condonation of 21 days delay in filing the First Appeals. 2. For the reasons stated in the respective applications, the Civil Applications deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the delay caused in filing the First Appeals is condoned, subject to the condition that the claimant shall not be entitled to statutory benefits for the period of delay. The Civil Applications stand disposed of. ORDER IN FIRST APPEALS : 3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 4. These appeals are directed against the common Judgments and Awards dated 21.03.2012 and 29.03.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga, in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 211 of 2011, 212 of 2011 and 771 of 2009, whereby the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Omerga partly allowed the references under Section 18 of 9-FA-435-2014.odt 3 the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and enhanced the compensation payable to the respective respondent-claimants along with the statutory benefits. 5. First Appeal No.435 of 2014, 134 of 2014 are preferred by the State challenging the enhancement granted by the Reference Court, whereas First Appeals (Stamp) No. 18022 of 2012, and 18028 of 2012 and First Appeal No.702 of 2017 are filed by the original claimants seeking further enhancement of compensation. 6. The lands belonging to the respective claimants, situated at village Pethsangavi and Holi, Taluka Omerga, District Osmanabad, were acquired for the purpose Rehabilitation of village Pethsangavi and Holi. The particulars of the acquired lands are as under: Sr. No. First Appeal No. LAR No. Survey/Gat No. Area Acquired 1. 435 of 2014 212 of 2011 46 3 H 71 R 2. 434 of 2011 211 of 2011 47 6 H 57 R 3. 702 of 2017 771 of 2009 46/2011 1 H 72 R 7. In LAR No. 211 of 2012 and 2012 of 2011, the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) was published on 24.02.1994 . Thereafter, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “the SLOA”) passed an Award under Section 11 of the Act on 26.03.1997 and 30.03.1996. The SLOA determined the market value of the acquired lands at rate of Rs.24,000/- per Hectare . 9-FA-435-2014.odt 4 8. In LAR No. 702 of 12017, the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) was published on 13.06.1994 . Thereafter, the Special Land Acquisition Officer (for short, “the SLOA”) passed an Award under Section 11 of the Act on 30.03.1996. The SLOA determined the market value of the acquired lands at rate of Rs.25,000/- per Hectare . 9. The claimants, being dissatisfied with the market value determined by the SLOA, accepted the amount of compensation under protest and sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. 10. Upon consideration of the evidence led by the parties, the learned Reference Court enhanced the market value to Rs.1,52,380/- per Acre for acquired land in LAR Nos.211 and 2012 of 2011 and in LAR No.702 of 2017 at the rate of Rs. 17,317/- per Acre, along with the statutory benefits. 11. Learned counsel Mr. A.B. Kale, holding for Mr. B.K. Pawar, learned counsel for the claimants, tenders across the Bar a copy of the order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.2528 of 2025 and connected matters. He submits that, in the said matters, the lands situated at village Holi were acquired for the rehabilitation of persons affected by the earthquake. The Coordinate Bench enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs.250/- per sq. mtr., after applying a deduction of 32% in respect of the acquired area. He, therefore, 9-FA-435-2014.odt 5 submits that the present claimants are also entitled to the same rate on the ground of parity. He has also invited the attention of this Court to copies of other awards, including the award dated 30.03.1996 passed by the SLAO in respect of lands situated at villages Holi and Pethsangavi, as well as other awards relating to lands situated at villages Holi and Chincholi. He submits that these villages are situated in close proximity and that the lands therein were acquired for rehabilitation purposes under different notifications. In view of the determination of compensation made by the Coordinate Bench in respect of village Holi, he submits that the claimants herein are also entitled to compensation at the same rate. He, therefore, prays that the appeals filed by the claimants be allowed. Learned counsel Mr. Gunale, appearing for the claimants in F.A. No. 702 of 2012, supports the submissions advanced by learned counsel Mr. Kale. 12 Per contra, the learned AGPs appearing for the State in the respective appeals submit that the learned Reference Court erred in enhancing the compensation by relying upon sale instances pertaining to different villages. They submit that the orders passed in other Land Acquisition References are not binding precedents. They further submit that the compensation determined by the Coordinate Bench in respect of village Holi cannot be applied to the present cases, as the acquired lands are situated at village Pethsangavi and a sale instance pertaining to village Pethsangavi is available for consideration. The learned AGPs further submit that the learned Reference Court awarded interest from the date of publication of the 9-FA-435-2014.odt 6 notification, which is contrary to the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari, reported in 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457. They, therefore, pray that the appeals filed by the State be allowed. 13. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and with their able assistance, I have perused the relevant awards and the orders relied upon by the parties. 14. It has come on record that awards were passed in respect of lands situated at villages Holi and Pethsangavi, as well as villages Holi and Chincholi. The present appeals concern lands situated at village Pethsangavi, which, like the lands at village Holi, were acquired for the rehabilitation of persons affected by the earthquake. Though the acquisitions were made under separate notifications, the purpose was common and the villages are in close proximity. While deciding First Appeal No.2528 of 2025 and connected matters, the Coordinate Bench considered Land Acquisition Reference No.762 of 2009 concerning village Holi and recorded that the State had decided not to challenge the order passed therein. The Coordinate Bench applied a deduction of 32% in respect of the acquired area and determined compensation at the rate of Rs.250/- per sq. mtr. In the circumstances, that determination is a relevant consideration while determining compensation for the lands at Pethsangavi. 9-FA-435-2014.odt 7 15. Having regard to judicial propriety and the need to maintain consistency in the determination of compensation for lands acquired for the same project, I am of the view that the claimants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.250/- per sq. mtr., after giving effect to a deduction of 32%.Accordingly, the appeals filed by the claimants deserve to be partly allowed. Interest shall, however, be governed by the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra). The appeals filed by the State also deserve to be partly allowed to that extent. Hence, the following order is passed. O R D E R (i) The First Appeals filed by the State as well as those filed by the claimants are partly allowed. (ii) The Judgment and Award dated 21.03.2012 in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 211 of 2011, 212 of 2011 as well as the Judgment and Award dated 29.03.2012 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 771 of 2009, passed by the learned Reference Court, are modified. (iii) The claimants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.250/- per sq. mtr. in respect of the acquired lands, after giving effect to a deduction of 32% in respect of the acquired area. (iv) The claimants shall be entitled to all consequential statutory benefits on the enhanced compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 9-FA-435-2014.odt 8 (v) The claimants shall be entitled to interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Act strictly in accordance with the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra). (vi) The amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be duly adjusted. (vii) The appellant-claimants shall pay the deficit court fees on the enhanced compensation, if any. (viii) The claimants shall not be entitled to statutory benefits and interest for the period of delay, if any, (ix) The rest of the Judgments and Awards passed by the learned Reference Court in the aforesaid Land Acquisition References shall remain unaltered. (x) The modified awards shall be drawn accordingly. (xi) Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE S P Rane