1 923-FA. 2855-2021.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 2855 OF 2021 TULSHIDAS PRABHAKARRAO ROHINKAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ... Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Koralkar Arun H. AGP for Respondent/s-State : Mr. S. V. Hange. Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. Mene Santosh B. ... CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 08.01.2026 FINAL ORDER :- 1. Heard both sides finally at the admission stage. 2. Appellant is challenging judgment and award dated 04.07.2014 passed in LAR.No.1084 of 2010 awarding compensation @ of Rs.2500/- per R., but refusing to grant benefit of escalation. Appellant is claiming the enhancement by awarding him the benefit of escalation on the ground of parity. 3. Respondents have contested claim of the appellant. It is submitted that appellant failed to make out any case of parity. He is not entitled to escalation. 4. Following are the material particulars in the present appeal : 1/3 2026:BHC-AUG:796 2 923-FA. 2855-2021.odt Sr. No. First Appeal No. L.A.R. No. Gut No. Total area U/sec.4 notification date U/sec.11 Award date SLAO rate per R as per Award Reference Court enhanced rate per R Type of land reference court awarded 923 2855/2021 1084/2010 179 01 H 18 R 27.04.2000 10.04.2003 Rs.800/- per R. for dry land Rs.2500/- per R. for dry land 1 H 18 R 5. Appellant’s land from village Rohina, Taluka Partur was acquired by notification under Section 4 issued on 27.04.2000. By award dated 10.04.2003 rate of Rs.800/- per R. was fixed considering it to be a dry land. The acquisition is for Nimna Dudhana Project. The case is squarely covered by consistent view taken by this Court in granting benefit of escalation @ 10% per annum. From self-same village and the project, lands were acquired vide notification dated 27.04.2000. By common order dated 15.12.2025, the benefit of escalation was granted for four (4) years. Present case is squarely covered by earlier view taken by this Court. 6. Respondents have not led any evidence before the Reference Court. They are not disputing the classification. The enhancement granted by the Reference Court has not been disputed by either of the parties. Appellant is entitled to escalation for four (4) years and the rate needs to be fixed at Rs.3660/- per R. I, therefore, pass following order : ORDER (i) First appeal is allowed partly. 2/3 3 923-FA. 2855-2021.odt (ii) The appellant shall be entitled to receive compensation @ of Rs.3660/- per R. (iii) The appellant shall not be entitled to interest and statutory benefits for the delayed period. (iv) The appellant shall be entitled to interest under Section 28 and 34 from the date of award as per law laid down in the judgment of Full Bench in case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari [2016 AIR (Bom.) 141]. (v) Save and except above modification. Rest of the impugned judgment and award shall stand unaltered. (vi) The appellant shall pay deficit court fees, if any. (vii) Record and proceeding be sent back to the concerned Court, if any. (viii) Award be drawn accordingly. (SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) ... vmk/- 3/3