Hanumant Sakharam Dangat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Executive Engineer, Lower Dudhna Project Division, Selu, Dist. Parbhani, since this department is abolished at present Jalna Irrigation Department, Jalna, Office at Motibagh, Jalna, Tq. and Dist. Jalna. .. Respondents

¶10

AND

¶11

FIRST APPEAL NO. 537 OF 2022

¶12

Hanumant Sakharam Dangat, Age : Major Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Village Revalgaon, Tq. Partur, Dist. Jalna. .. Appellant

¶13

Versus

¶14

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector, Jalna

¶15

2 fa 748.21 with fa 537.22

¶16

having his office at Collector Office, Jalna.

¶17

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, M.I.W., Jalna.

¶18

The Executive Engineer, Lower Dudhna Project Division, Selu, Dist. Parbhani, since this department is abolished at present Jalna Irrigation Department, Jalna, Office at Motibagh, Jalna, Tq. and Dist. Jalna. .. Respondents

¶19

Shri Deepak M. Kakde, Advocate for the Appellant in both matters. Shri S. V. Hange, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in both matters.

¶20

Shri Ruturaj Patil, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3 in both matters.

¶21

CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

¶22

CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON : 25.11.2025. JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 03.12.2025.

¶23

JUDGMENT :-

¶24

. Heard both sides finally at the admission stage with their consent.

¶25

The appellants are claiming enhancement of compensation and they are agrrieved by judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in their respective reference proceedings. In both the cases they are relying upon previous judgment rendered by this Court. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed on

¶26

3 fa 748.21 with fa 537.22

¶27

record summery of his arguments along with chart for the ready reference. Besides that judgment and order dated 14.11.2025 passed in First Appeal No. 2259 of 2021 by me has also been placed on record for ready reference.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that there is difference in the notification, location of the land and the pattern, hence parity cannot be applied. It is further submitted that the claim of escalation of 12% is unreasonable and arbitrary. It is vehemently submitted that there is no binding precedent laid down in the matter of the Central Warehousing Corporation Vs. Thakur Dwara Kalan UI-Maruf Baraglan Wala (Dead) and others reported in (2020) 19 SCC 236 .

¶29

In both the matters lands are acquired for the purpos of Nimna Dudhna Project Selu.

¶30

First Appeal No. 748 of 2021 :

¶31

In First Appeal No. 748 of 2021 land Sy./Gut No. 4/2 and 9/1 admeasuring 1H 95R and 39R respectively situated at village Salgaon, Tq. Partur, Dist. Jalna was acquired. The notification U/Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act (for the sake of brevity and convenience hereafter referred as to the “Act”) was issued on 10.12.1998. The S. L. A. O. awarded rate of Rs. 600/- per R. The Reference Court in L.A.R. No. 196 of 2011 enhanced it to Rs. 2,000/- per R. The appellant is claiming rate of Rs. 2,500/- per R with escalation of 12% per annum.

¶32

4 fa 748.21 with fa 537.22

¶33

First Appeal No. 537 of 2022 :

¶34

In First Appeal No. 537 of 2022 land out of gut No. 29/2/3 admeasuring 2H 25R situated at village Revalgaon, Tq. Partur, Dist. Jalna was acquired. The notification U/Sec. 4(1) of the Act was issued on 12.07.1996. The reference Court enhanced the rate to Rs. 2,000/- per R. The appellant is claiming rate of Rs. 2,500/- per R.

¶35

A consistent view has been taken by this Court which can be reflected from the following chart that claimants are entitled to have rate of Rs. 2,500/- per R for dry land.

¶36

Sr. No.	Name of Village	Sec. 4 Notification date	Rate per granted Hon’ble H Court accepted acquiring body	R by igh and by	First Appeal No.
01.	Satona (Bk)	31.03.1996	Rs. 2,500/- dry land	for	4285 of 2022
02.	Raniwahegaon	23.06.1995	Rs. 2,400/- dry land	for	1958 of 2018
03.	Deola	13.07.1995	Rs. 2,400/- dry land	for	2485 of 2016

¶37

The material placed on record indicates that the lands from the surrounding villages were acquired for the self same project. The rate of Rs. 2,500/- per R for dry land was awarded. I have gone through the judgments of the coordinate benches referred in

¶38

5 fa 748.21 with fa 537.22

¶39

above chart. Relying on the same I have also taken a view vide judgment dated 14.11.2025 in First Appeal No. 2259 of 2021 upholding the rate of Rs. 2,500/- per R with permitted increases of escalation of 10% per annum. In view of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matter of Ali Mohammd Beig and others Vs. State of J. & K reported AIR 2017 SC 1518, Huchanagouda Vs. The Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer and others (supra) and the Central Warehousing Corporation Vs. Thakur Dwara Kalan UI-Maruf Baraglan Wala (Dead) and others reported in [2023] 14 SCR 926 , I am of the considered view that the appellants are entitled to get rate of Rs. 2,500/- per R. Its matter of record that the acquiring body did not lead any evidence before the Reference Court.

¶40

In First Appeal No. 748 of 2021 escalation of 12% per annum is claimed. Considering the date of notification in the present matters and the notification issued in above referred matters the escalation of 10% per annum is appropriate. In that view of the matter the appellants are entitled to have escalation as follows

¶41

First Appeal No. 748 of 2021 :

¶42

The rate comes to Rs. 2,750/- per R for dry land.

¶43

In case of First Appeal No. 537 of 2022, there is no time gap as such between the notifications in question and therefore, the appellants are entitled to rate of Rs. 2,500/- per R. In view of

¶44

6 fa 748.21 with fa 537.22

¶45

above situation both the appeals are desirable to be allowed.

¶46

For the reasons stated above, I therefore pass following order.

¶47

O R D E R

¶48

i) First appeals are allowed partly.

¶49

ii) Impugned judgment and award passed in L.A.R. No. 196 of 2011 is quashed and set aside and the appellants shall be entitled to have rate of Rs. 2750/- per R.

¶50

iii) Impugned judgment and award passed in L.A.R. No. 659 of 2010 is quashed and set aside and the appellants shall be entitled to have rate of Rs. 2,500/- per R.

¶51

iv) Save and except the above modification the remaining judgment and award shall be maintained.

¶52

v) Award be drawn accordingly.

¶53

vi) The appellants shall pay the deficit court fees.

¶54

vi) The record and proceedings shall be sent back to the Reference Court.

¶55

[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]

¶56

bsb/Nov. 25

Hanumant Sakharam Dangat v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanumant Sakharam Dangat v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Sunil Navalu Magdum and Ors. vs Mr. Navalkumar Bhimrao Halbagol Ors.

Balaji Narayanrao Kumthekar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Collector, Latur

Mojam Munirsab Untawale Vs the State of Maharashtra through Collector, Latur

Vishnu Abasaheb Bhokare and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Collector Jalna and Ors.

Union of India through the General Manager Central Railway Mumbai and Ors. Vs Balu Pandit Rathod

Murlidhar Babaji Jadhav (Died) through Lrs Arun Murlidhar Jadhav Vs the Ex. Engineer, Irri. Pro. Strengthening Div. Omerga and Ors.