Partly allowed

Ganesh Manmath Wadkar v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Mar 2026FA/1656/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment disposed of multiple first appeals and X-objections regarding land acquisition compensation for the Kalegaon Storage Tank project. The court fixed market value based on parity with a prior coordinate Bench judgment while adjusting for timeline differences, addressing interest calculations, and rejecting claims for tree enhancement due to evidence gaps.

What did the court decide?

Compensation fixed at Rs. 45-55 per sq. ft. based on parity; 12% additional component and solatium awarded; interest from date of award at 9% then 15% until payment; claims for tree enhancement reject

Ganesh Manmath Wadkar vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:21847-DB

¶2

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶3

(This judgment is corrected as per the speaking to the minutes order dated 07.05.2026)

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1098 of 2018

¶6

Nagorao S/o Digambarrao Kandharkar, Age 57 Yrs. Occu : Agriculture

¶7

Radhesham S/o Digambarrao Kandharkar, Age 47 Yrs. Occu : Agriculture

¶8

Pravin S/o Digambarrao Kandharkar, Age 34 Yrs. Occu : Agriculture

¶9

Indubai w/o Digambarrao Kandharkar, Age 91 Yrs. Occu : Agriculture

¶10

Shobhabai W/o Nagorao Kandharkar, Age 52 Yrs. Occu : Agriculture

¶11

R/o : Ahmedpur, Taluka : Ahmedpur, District : Latur

¶12

… APPELLANTS

¶13

VERSUS

¶14

The State of Maharashtra, Through- The Collector, Latur.

¶15

The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur.

¶16

… RESPONDENTS

¶17

Mr. A.V. Sakolkar h/f Mr. V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for appellants Mr. A.B. Girase, GP for respondent/State. Mr. Ram Deshpande, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶18

¶19

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶20

WITH

¶21

FIRST APPEAL 802 OF 2014

¶22

1.	The State of Maharashtra, Through- The Collector, Latur.
2.	The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur. … APPELLANTS
	VERSUS
1.	Nagorao s/o. Digambar Kandharkar, Age- 51 years, Occu. Agril.,
2.	Radheshyam s/o. Digambar Kandharkar, Age- 41 years, Occu. Agril.,
3.	Pravin s/o. Nagorao Kandharkar, Age – 25 years, Occu. Agril.,
4.	Indubai w/o. Digambar Kandharkar, Age- 85 years, Occu. Agril.,
5.	Shobhabai w/o. Nagorao Kandharkar, Age- 45 years, Occu. Agril.,
	All R/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur … RESPONDENTS
	WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 803 OF 2014
1.	The State of Maharashtra, Through- The Collector, Latur. 2

¶23

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt 2. The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur. … APPELLANTS VERSUS Bhojaram s/o. Devichand Bhagat, Age: Major years, Occu. Agril., R/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. … RESPONDENT WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 804 OF 2014 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through- The Collector, Latur. 2. The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur. … APPELLANTS VERSUS Harishchandra s/o. Chagan Bhagat, Age: Major years, Occu. Agril., R/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. … RESPONDENT WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 805 OF 2014 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through- The Collector, Latur. 2. The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur. … APPELLANTS 3

¶24

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶25

VERSUS

¶26

Zulfikar s/o. Salauddin Kazi, Age- Major years, Occu. Agril.,

¶27

Jamiroddin s/o. Mainoddin Kazi, Age- Major years, Occu. Agril.,

¶28

… RESPONDENTS

¶29

WITH

¶30

FIRST APPEAL NO. 806 OF 2014

¶31

The State of Maharashtra, Through- The Collector, Latur.

¶32

The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur.

¶33

… APPELLANTS

¶34

VERSUS

¶35

Sumanbai w/o. Waman Kandarkar, Age- 50 years, Occu. Agril.,

¶36

Ravikant s/o. Waman Kandarkar, Age- 30 years, Occu. Agril.,

¶37

Ratnakar s/o. Waman Kandarkar, Age- 28 years, Occu. Agril.,

¶38

Dinkar s/o. Waman Kandarkar, Age- 27 years, Occu. Agril.,

¶39

Karan s/o. Deepak Kandharkar, Minor U/G. Of his mother.

¶40

Arjun s/o. Deepak Kandharkar, Minor U/G. Of his mother, Yogita w/o. Deepak Kandharkar, (Guardian for claimant Nos. 5 & 6) Age- 28 years, Occu. Agril.,

¶41

All R/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur.

¶42

… RESPONDENTS

¶43

¶44

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶45

WITH

¶46

FIRST APPEAL NO. 807 OF 2014

¶47

The State of Maharashtra, Through- The Collector, Latur.

¶48

The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur. VERSUS Mainoddin Amiroddin Khatik Died through LRs.

¶49

Rabiyabi w/o Mainoddin Kureshi (Bakkar Khatik), Age 70 years, Occu. H.H.

¶50

Azim S/o Mainoddin Kureshi, Age 55 years, Occu. Agri and Business,

¶51

Naser S/o Mainoddin Kureshi, Age 45 years, Occu. Business,

¶52

Kalim S/o. Mainoddin Kureshi, Age 50 years, Occu. Business 1 to 4 R/o Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur.

¶53

Akhtar W/o Abdul Raheman, Age 52 years, Occu. H.H. R/o Maysur Colony, Latur.

¶54

Latila /o Ismail Kureshi, Age 42 years, Occu. H.H., R/o Kallamb Tq. Kallamb, Dist. Latur.

… APPELLANTS

… RESPONDENTS

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶59

WITH

¶60

FIRST APPEAL NO. 808 OF 2014

¶61

1.	The State of Maharashtra, Through- The Collector, Latur.
2.	The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur.	… APPELLANTS
	VERSUS
	Balaram s/o. Chagan Bhagat (Died) His LRs.
	Kamalbai w/o. Balaram Bhagat, Age- Major years, Occu. Agril., R/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. …	RESPONDENTS
	WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 809 OF 2014
1.	The State of Maharashtra, Through- The Collector, Latur.
2.	The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur.	… APPELLANTS
	VERSUS
1.	Habib s/o. Isa S/o. Habib Mohammad Chaus, Age- 65 years, Occu. Agril.,
2.	Habib s/o. Khijar S/o. Habib Mohammad Chaus, Age-20 years, Occ. Agril.,
	Both R/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. …	RESPONDENTS

¶62

¶63

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶64

Mr. A.B. Girase, GP for appellant/State. Mr. S.G. Sangle, Advocate for appellant no.2.

¶65

Mr. A.V. Sakolkar h/f Mr. V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for respondents.

¶66

… WITH

¶67

X-OBJECTION NO. 101 OF 2023 IN FA/807/2014

¶68

Mainoddin Amiroddin Khatik

¶69

Died through LRs.

¶70

Azim S/o Mainoddin Qureshi @ Khatik Age Major Yrs. Occu : Agriculture

¶71

Kalim S/o. Mainoddin Kureshi Age Major Yrs. Occu. Agriculture

¶72

Naser S/o Mainoddin Kureshi Age Major Yrs. Occu. Agriculture All R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, District : Latur.

¶73

… APPLICANTS

¶74

VERSUS

¶75

The State of Maharashtra,

¶76

Through- The Collector, Latur.

¶77

The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur.

¶78

… RESPONDENTS

¶79

WITH

¶80

X-OBJECTION NO. 102 OF 2023 IN FA/806/2014

¶81

Sumanbai w/o. Waman Kandarkar, Age- 60 years, Occu. Agril.,

¶82

¶83

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶84

2.	Ravikant s/o. Waman Kandarkar, Age- 40 years, Occu. Agril.,
3.	Ratnakar s/o. Waman Kandarkar, Age- 38 years, Occu. Agril.,
4.	Dinkar s/o. Waman Kandarkar, Age- 37 years, Occu. Agril.,
5.	Karan s/o. Deepak Kandharkar, Minor U/G. Of his mother.
6.	Arjun s/o. Deepak Kandharkar, Minor U/G. Of his mother, Yogita w/o. Deepak Kandharkar, (Guardian for claimant Nos. 5 & 6) Age- 28 years, Occu. Agril.,
	All R/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. … APPLICANTS
	VERSUS
1.	The State of Maharashtra, Through- The Collector, Latur.
2.	The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur. … RESPONDENTS WITH X-OBJECTION NO. 103 OF 2023 IN FA/805/2014
1.	Zulfikar S/o Salauddin Kazi, Age Major Yrs. Occu : Agriculture,
2.	Jamiroddin S/o Mainoddin Kazi, Age Major Yrs. Occu : Agriculture, R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, District : Latur … APPLICANTS 8

¶85

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶86

	VERSUS
1.	The State of Maharashtra, Through- The Collector, Latur.
2.	The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur.	… RESPONDENTS
	WITH X-OBJECTION NO. 104 OF 2023 IN FA/809/2014
1.	Habib Isa S/o Habib Mohammad Chaus, Age Major Yrs. Occu : Agriculture
2.	Habib Khijar S/o Habib Mohammad Chaus, Age Major Yrs. Occu : Agriculture,
	All R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur District: Latur.
	VERSUS	… APPLICANTS
1.	The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur.
2.	The Executive Engineer Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur.	… RESPONDENTS
	WITH
	X-OBJECTION NO. 105 OF 2023 IN FA/803/2023
1.	Bhojaram S/o Devichand Bhagat, Age Major Yrs. Occu : Agriculture, R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, District: Latur.	… APPLICANT
	VERSUS

¶87

¶88

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶89

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur.

¶90

The Executive Engineer Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur. … RESPONDENTS

¶91

WITH

¶92

X-OBJECTION NO. 106 2023 IN FA/808/2014

¶93

Balaram S/o Chagan Bhagat, Died through LRs. 1. Kamalbai W/o Balaram Bhagat, Age Major Yrs. Occu : Agriculture, R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, District: Latur … APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur. 2. The Executive Engineer Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur. … RESPONDENTS WITH X-OBJECTION NO. 61 OF 2024 IN FA/804/2014 Harishchandra S/o Chagan Bhagat, Died through LR 1. Subhash S/o Harishchandra Bhagat Age 55 Yrs. Occu : Agriculture, R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, District : Latur. … APPLICANT VERSUS

¶94

¶95

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶96

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur.

¶97

The Executive Engineer Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur. … RESPONDENTS

¶98

_______________________________________________________________ Mr. A.V. Sakolkar h/f Mr. V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for applicant/applicants Mr. A.B. Girase, GP for respondent/State. Mr. S.G. Sangle, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶99

WITH

¶100

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2266 OF 2013

¶101

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad)

¶102

... APPELLANT

¶103

VERSUS

¶104

Yogesh s/o Subhash Shetkar Age-24 yrs, Occu. Agri R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur Dist Latur 2. The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur … RESPONDENTS

¶105

WITH

¶106

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2267 of 2013

¶107

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad)

¶108

... APPELLANT

¶109

¶110

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶111

VERSUS

¶112

1.	Vilas s/o Raghunath Navrange
	Age-40 yrs, Occu. Agri R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist Latur
2.	The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur … RESPONDENTS
	WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2268 OF 2013
	The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad) ... APPELLANT
	VERSUS
1.	Babu s/o Ramling Shetkar Age-60 yrs, Occu. Agri R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist Latur
2.	The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur … RESPONDENTS
	WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2269 OF 2013
	The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad) ... APPELLANT VERSUS

¶113

¶114

	1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt
1.	Chandrashekar s/o Ramlu Ayya Age-45 yrs, Occu. Agri R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur Dist Latur
2.	The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur … RESPONDENTS WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2270 OF 2013
	The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad) ... APPELLANT VERSUS
1.	Suryakant s/o Ramlu Ayya Age-45 yrs, Occu. Agri R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist Latur
2.	The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur … RESPONDENTS WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2271 of 2013
	The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad) ... APPELLANT VERSUS
1.	Shrihari s/o Hanmant Navrange Age-54 yrs, Occu. Agri R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist Latur

¶115

¶116

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶117

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur

¶118

… RESPONDENTS

¶119

WITH

¶120

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2272 OF 2013

¶121

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad) ... APPELLANT VERSUS 1. Satyanarayan s/o Ramlu Ayya Age-50 yrs, Occu. Agri R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist Latur 2. The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur … RESPONDENTS WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2273 OF 2013 The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad) .. APPELLANT VERSUS 1. Mayur s/o Subhash Shetkar Age-22 yrs, Occu. Agri R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur Dist Latur 2. The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur … RESPONDENTS 14

¶122

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶123

WITH

¶124

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2274 OF 2013

¶125

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad)

¶126

... APPELLANT

¶127

VERSUS

¶128

Nagnath s/o Hanmant Navrange Age-60 yrs, Occu. Agri R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur Dist Latur 2. The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur … RESPONDENTS _______________________________________________________________ Mr. S.G. Sangle, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. A.B. Girase, GP for respondent/State. Mr. V.B. Patil & Mr. Satish S. Deshmukh, Advocates for respondent no.1.

¶129

_______________________________________________________________ WITH X-OBJECTION (ST.) NO. 39144 OF 2016 IN FA/2273/2013

¶130

Mayur s/o Subhash Shetkar Age 30 years, Occu: Agril., R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur Dist. Latur

¶131

… APPLICANT

¶132

VERSUS

¶133

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur

¶134

The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … RESPONDENTS

¶135

¶136

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶137

WITH

¶138

X-OBJECTION (ST.) NO. 41987 OF 2017 IN FA/2269/2013

¶139

Chandrashekar s/o Ramlu Ayya Age; Majors, Occu: Agril., R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur.

¶140

… APPLICANT

¶141

VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur 2. The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … RESPONDENTS WITH X-OBJECTION (ST.) NO. 42048 OF 2017 IN FA/2270/2013 Suryakant s/o Ramlu Ayya, Age; Majors, Occu: Agril., R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. … APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur 2. The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … RESPONDENTS WITH X-OBJECTION (ST.) NO. 18614 OF 2020 IN FA/2274/2013

¶142

Nagnath s/o Hanmant Navrange Age 67 years, Occu: Agril., R/o Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur.

¶143

… APPLICANT

¶144

¶145

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶146

VERSUS

¶147

1.	The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur
2.	The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.
		… RESPONDENTS
	WITH
	X-OBJECTION NO. 51 OF 2022 IN FA/2272/2013
	Satyanarayan s/o Ramlu Ayya Age; Majors, Occu: Agril
	R/o Ahmadpur, Tq. Ahmadpur, Dist Latur.
	VERSUS	… APPLICANT
1.	The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur
2.	The Executive Engineer,
	Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.
		… RESPONDENTS
	WITH
	X-OBJECTION NO. 168 OF 2024 IN FA/2266/2013
	Yogesh s/o Subhash Shetkar
	Age 32 years, Occu: Agril R/o Ahmadpur, Tq. Ahmadpur, Dist Latur.
	VERSUS	… APPLICANT
1.	The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur
2.	The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.
		… RESPONDENTS 17

¶148

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶149

WITH

¶150

X-OBJECTION NO. 210 OF 2025 IN FA/2267/2013

¶151

	Vilas S/o Raghunath Navrange Age-53 yrs, Occu- Agril R/o Ahmadpur, Dist Latur VERSUS	… APPLICANT
1.	The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur
2.	The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.
	WITH X-OBJECTION NO. 211 OF 2025 IN FA/2268/2013	… RESPONDENTS
	Babu s/o Ramling Shetkar (Deceased) Through its LRs.
1.	Kaushlyabai W/o. Baburao Shetkar Age: 71 Years, Occu: Household
2.	Madhav S/o Baburao Shetkar Age: 41 Years, Occu: Agriculturist
3.	Ganesh S/o Baburao Shetkar Age: 33 Years, Occu: Agriculturist
	All R/o. Bhoi Galli, Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur
	VERSUS	… APPLICANTS
1.	The State of Maharashtra
	Through Collector, Latur

¶152

¶153

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶154

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad)

¶155

… RESPONDENTS

¶156

WITH

¶157

X-OBJECTION NO. 212 OF 2025 IN FA/2271/2013

¶158

Shrihari s/o Hanmant Navrange Age-66 yrs, Occu- Agril R/o Ahmadpur, Dist Latur

¶159

… APPLICANT

¶160

VERSUS

¶161

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur

¶162

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad)

¶163

… RESPONDENTS

¶164

Mr. Satish S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the applicant Mr. A.B. Girase, GP for respondent/State. Mr. S.G. Sangle, Advocates for respondent no.2.

¶165

_______________________________________________________________ WITH

¶166

FIRST APPEAL NO. 603 OF 2011

¶167

Habib Isa s/o Habib Mohd. Chaus, Age: 73 years, Occu: Agril., R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur

¶168

Hasina Begum w/o Habib Isa Chaus, Age: 53 years, Occu: Agril., R/o as above.

¶169

¶170

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶171

Habib Azhar s/o Habib Isa Chaus, Age: 30 years, Occu: Agril., R/o as above. … APPELLANTS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur. 2. The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur. … RESPONDENTS _______________________________________________________________ Mr. A.V. Sakolkar h/f Mr.V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for the appellants Mr. A.B. Girase, GP for respondent/State. Mr. S.G. Sangle, Advocates for respondent no.2. _______________________________________________________________ WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1304 OF 2019 The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad) … APPELLANT VERSUS 1. Sujatabai w/o Sheshrao Bansode Age-55 yrs, Occu. Agri & H.H. R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur 2. The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur … RESPONDENTS WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1305 OF 2019

¶172

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur

¶173

¶174

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶175

(Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad) VERSUS

¶176

… APPELLANT

¶177

Mehaboob Ahmed s/o Ajimoddin Kazi Age-60 yrs, Occu. Agri R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur

¶178

Mujiboddin s/o Mehaboob Ahmed Kazi Age 27 yrs. Occu. Agri r/o as above

¶179

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur … RESPONDENTS

¶180

WITH

¶181

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1306 OF 2019

¶182

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad) ... APPELLANT

¶183

VERSUS

¶184

1. Balaji s/o Narayan Desai (Died) Through LRs.

¶185

1(1) Smt. Vimalbai w/o Balaji Desai Age. 55 years Occu. Agril.

¶186

1(2) Pranali D/o Balaji Desai Age. 29 years Occu. Agril.

¶187

1(3) Prasanna s/o Balaji Desai Age. 35 years Occu. Agril.

¶188

1(4) Sainath s/o Balaji Desai Age. 32 years Occu. Agril. R/o. Nanded Taluka and District Nanded

¶189

¶190

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶191

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur … RESPONDENTS

¶192

WITH

¶193

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1307 OF 2019

¶194

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad)

¶195

… APPELLANT

¶196

VERSUS

¶197

Hafizoddin s/o Variroddin Kazi Age-60 yrs, Occu. Agri R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur

¶198

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur

¶199

… RESPONDENTS

¶200

WITH

¶201

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1308 OF 2019 The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad)

¶202

... APPELLANT

¶203

VERSUS

¶204

Basavraj s/o Shivraj Irphale Age-33 yrs, Occu. Agri R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur.

¶205

Ravishankar s/o Shivraj Irphale Age 28 yrs. Occu. Agri r/o as above

¶206

¶207

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶208

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur

¶209

… RESPONDENTS

¶210

WITH

¶211

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1309 OF 2019

¶212

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad)

¶213

... APPELLANT

¶214

VERSUS

¶215

Kashinath s/o Santram Kambale (Died) Through Legal Representatives.

¶216

1(1) Smt. Harubai w/o Kashinath Kamble Age. 67 years Occu. Agril.

¶217

1(2) Manoj s/o Kashinath Kamble Age. 27 years Occu. Agril.

¶218

1(3) Santram s/o Kashinath Kamble Age. 46 years Occu. Agril.

¶219

1(4) Umabai w/o Anil Gaikwad Age. 40 years Occu. Agril.

¶220

1(5) Sohambai w/o Dhanaji Suryawanshi Age. 38 years Occu. Agril.

¶221

1(6) Ramabai w/o Gautam Sonkamble Age. 36 years Occu. Agril.

¶222

1(7) Nitabai w/o Raju Kamble Age. 34 years Occu. Agril.

¶223

1(8) Mangalbai w/o Madhav Kamble Age. 32 years Occu. Agril.

¶224

R/o. Ahemadpur Taluka Ahemadpur District Latur

¶225

¶226

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶227

Vishwanath s/o Santram Kambale Age 66 yrs. Occu. Agri R/o as above

¶228

… RESPONDENTS

¶229

WITH

¶230

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1310 OF 2019

¶231

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad)

¶232

... APPELLANT

¶233

VERSUS

¶234

Latifoddin s/o Ajimoddin Kazi (Died) Through Legal Representatives.

¶235

1(1) Bilkis Begum w/o Latifoddin Kazi Age. 80 years Occu. Agril.

¶236

1(2) Ajimoddin s/o Latifoddin Kazi Age. 53 years Occu. Agril.

¶237

1(3) Habiboddin s/o Latifoddin Kazi Age. 44 years Occu. Agril.

¶238

1(4) Khaja s/o Latifoddin Kazi Age. 39 years Occu. Agril.

¶239

1(5) Durdana Begum w/o Mazhar Sayyad Age. 48 years Occu. Agril.

¶240

1(6) Farzanabegum D/o Latifoddin Kazi Age. 56 years Occu. Agril.

¶241

1(7) Sultanabegum w/o Yunus Sayyad Age. 54 years Occu. Agril.

¶242

1(8) Sameena w/o Laiq Farooqi Age. 40 years Occu. Agril.

¶243

¶244

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶245

1(9) Rijvanbe D/o Latifoddin Kazi Age. 38 years Occu. Agril.

¶246

R/o. Ahemadpur Taluka Ahemadpur District Latur

¶247

Ajamoddin s/o Latifoddin Kazi Age- 37 yrs. Occu. Agri

¶248

Habiboddin s/o Latifoddin Kazi (Died) Through LRs.

¶249

1/3-A.Taheniyat w/o Habiboddin Kazi Age. 43 years. Occu. Agril.

¶250

2/3-B.Rimsha D/o Habiboddin Kazi Age. 17 years. Occu. Education.

¶251

3/3-C.Muhammad Riyan s/o Habiboddin Kazi Age. 15 years. Occu. Education.

¶252

4/3-D.Mohammad s/o Habiboddin Kazi Age. 13 years. Occu. Education.

¶253

The applicants No 1/3-C and 1/3-D are The Minor under Guardian of Natural Mother i.e. Applicant No 1/3-A.

¶254

All R/o Ahemadpur Tq. Ahemadpur Dist. Latur

¶255

Khwaja s/o Latifoddin Kazi Age-37 yrs, Occu. Agri

¶256

Sayyad Durdana Began w/o Mazhar Age- 37 yrs, Occu. Agri

¶257

All R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur

¶258

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur

¶259

… RESPONDENTS

¶260

¶261

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶262

WITH

¶263

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1311 OF 2019

¶264

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad)

¶265

… APPELLANT

¶266

VERSUS

¶267

Machindra s/o Nagorao Gaikwad Age-60 yrs, Occu. Agri R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur

¶268

Shripal s/o Machindra Gaikwad Age Major, Occu. Agri r/o as above

¶269

Archana d/o Machindra Gaikwad Age Major, Occu. Agri r/o as above

¶270

Mangesh s/o Machindra Gaikwad Age Major, Occu. Agri r/o as above

¶271

Sushila w/o Machindra Gaikwad Age Major, Occu. Agri r/o as above

¶272

Pratibha d/o Machindra Gaikwad Age Major, Occu. Agri r/o as above

¶273

Nagesh s/o Machindra Gaikwad Age Major, Occu. Agri

¶274

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur

¶275

… RESPONDENTS

¶276

¶277

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶278

WITH

¶279

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1340 OF 2019

¶280

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad)

¶281

… APPELLANT

¶282

VERSUS

¶283

Shrihari s/o Hanmant Navrange Age-52 yrs, Occu. Agri R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur

¶284

Narhari s/o Hanmant Navrange (Died) Through LRs.

¶285

2(1) Smt. Pushpabai w/o Narhari Navrange Age. 67 years Occu. Agril.

¶286

2(2) Kiran s/o Narhari Navrange Age. 47 years Occu. Agril.

¶287

2(3) Jayant s/o Narhari Navrange Age. 44 years Occu. Agril.

¶288

2(4) Rahul s/o Narhari Navrange Age. 37 years Occu. Agril.

¶289

2(5) Jyoti w/o Narayan Kamble Age. 50 years Occu. Agril.

¶290

2(6) Anjali w/o Ramesh Waghmare Age. 42 years Occu. Agril.

¶291

2(7) Megha w/o Siddharth Shelke Age. 40 years Occu. Agril. R/o. N 2 Cidco Aurangabad Taluka and District Aurangabad.

¶292

¶293

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶294

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur 4. Executive Engineer, Local Division, Latur … RESPONDENTS WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1341 OF 2019 The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad) ... APPELLANT VERSUS 1. Habib Isa s/o Habib Mohamad Chous Age-69 yrs, Occu. Agri R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur 2. Hasina Begam w/o Habib Isa Chous Age 50 yrs, Occ. Agri r/o as above 3. Habib Azhar s/o Habib Isa Chous Age 27 yrs, Occu. Agri r/o as above 4. The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur … RESPONDENTS WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1342 OF 2019 The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad) … APPELLANT VERSUS

¶295

¶296

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶297

Rafiyoddin s/o Vaziroddin Kazi (Died) Through LRs.

¶298

1/A Anjumbegum w/o Rafiyoddin Kazi Age 72 years. Occu. Agril.

¶299

1/B Mukhtar s/o Rafiyoddin Kazi Age 55 years. Occu. Agril.

¶300

1/C Sabir s/o Rafiyoddin Kazi Age 42 years. Occu. Agril.

¶301

1/D Faiyaz s/o Rafiyoddin Kzi Age 40 years. Occu. Agril.

¶302

1/E Tambubee w/o Shiddik Pathan Age 52 years. Occu. Agril.

¶303

1/F Kausarbee w/o Anwar Sayyad Age 51 years. Occu. Agril.

¶304

1/G Taslim w/o Sajid Pathan Age 48 years. Occu. Service

¶305

1/H Latifa w/o Jabbar Sayyad Age 46 years. Occu. Agril.

¶306

All R/o Kalegaon Taluka Ahemadpur Dist. Latur.

¶307

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur

¶308

… RESPONDENTS

¶309

WITH

¶310

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1343 OF 2019

¶311

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad)

… APPELLANT

VERSUS

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶316

Sardaroddin s/o Ajamoddin Kazi Age-60 yrs, Occu. Agri R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur 2. The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur … RESPONDENTS _______________________________________________________________ Mr. S.G. Sangle, Advocate for appellant. Mr. A.B. Girase, GP for respondent/State. Mr. G.K. Sontakke and Mr.A.V. Sakolkar h/f Mr.V.G. Sakolkar, Advocates for the respondent no.1

¶317

WITH

¶318

X-OBJECTION (ST.) NO. 10772 OF 2019 IN FA/1343/2019

¶319

Sardaroddin s/o Ajamoddin Kazi Age-69 yrs, Occu. Agri R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur … APPLICANT

¶320

VERSUS

¶321

1. The State of Maharashtra Through, The Dist. Collector Latur

¶322

1. The Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation through, The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, At. Latur.

¶323

1. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, [Purna Project] Latur … RESPONDENTS

¶324

¶325

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶326

WITH

¶327

X-OBJECTION NO. 91 OF 2022

¶328

IN FA/1310/2019

¶329

Latifoddin s/o Ajimoddin Kazi (Died) Through Legal Representatives.

¶330

1/1 Bilkis Begum w/o Latifoddin Kazi Age. 78 years Occu. Agril.

¶331

1/2 Ajimoddin s/o Latifoddin Kazi Age. 51 years Occu. Agril.

¶332

1/3 Habiboddin s/o Latifoddin Kazi (Died) Through LRs.

¶333

1/3-A.Taheniyat w/o Habiboddin Kazi Age. 43 years. Occu. Agril.

¶334

2/3-B.Rimsha D/o Habiboddin Kazi Age. 17 years. Occu. Education.

¶335

3/3-C.Muhammad Riyan s/o Habiboddin Kazi Age. 15 years. Occu. Education.

¶336

4/3-D.Mohammad s/o Habiboddin Kazi Age. 13 years. Occu. Education.

¶337

The applicants No 1/3-C and 1/3-D are The Minor under Guardian of Natural Mother i.e. Applicant No 1/3-A.

¶338

All R/o Ahemadpur Tq. Ahemadpur Dist. Latur

¶339

1/4 Khaja s/o Latifoddin Kazi Age. 37 years Occu. Agril.

¶340

1/5 Durdana Begum w/o Mazhar Sayyad Age. 46 years Occu. Agril.

¶341

1/6 Farzanabegum D/o Latifoddin Kazi Age. 54 years Occu. Agril.

¶342

¶343

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶344

1/7 Sultanabegum w/o Yunus Sayyad Age. 52 years Occu. Agril.

¶345

1/8 Sameena w/o Laiq Farooqi Age. 38 years Occu. Agril.

¶346

1/9 Rijvanbe D/o Latifoddin Kazi Age. 36 years Occu. Agril.

¶347

All R/o. Ahemadpur Taluka Ahemadpur District Latur

¶348

Ajmoddin s/o Latifoddin Kazi Age. Major.years. Occ. Agril.

¶349

Habiboddin s/o Latifoddin Kazi (Died) Through LRs.

¶350

1/3-A.Taheniyat w/o Habiboddin Kazi Age. 43 years. Occu. Agril.

¶351

2/3-B.Rimsha D/o Habiboddin Kazi Age. 17 years. Occu. Education.

¶352

3/3-C.Muhammad Riyan s/o Habiboddin Kazi Age. 15 years. Occu. Education.

¶353

4/3-D.Mohammad s/o Habiboddin Kazi Age. 13 years. Occu. Education.

¶354

Khaja s/o Latifoddin Kazi Age. Major.years. Occ. Agril.

¶355

Sayyad Durdana Begum Mazhar Age. Major.years. Occ. Agril.

¶356

All R/o Ahemadpur Tq. Ahmadpur Dist. Latur

¶357

… APPLICANTS

¶358

VERSUS

¶359

The State of Maharashtra Through, The Dist. Collector Latur

¶360

¶361

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶362

The Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation through, The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, At. Latur.

¶363

The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, [Purna Project] Latur

¶364

… RESPONDENTS

¶365

WITH

¶366

X-OBJECTION NO. 48 OF 2023 IN FA/1342/2019

¶367

Rafiyoddin s/o Vaziroddin Kazi (Died) Through LRs.

¶368

1/A Anjumbegum w/o Rafiyoddin Kazi Age 72 years. Occu. Agril.

¶369

1/B Mukhtar s/o Rafiyoddin Kazi Age 55 years. Occu. Agril.

¶370

1/C Sabir s/o Rafiyoddin Kazi Age 42 years. Occu. Agril.

¶371

1/D Faiyaz s/o Rafiyoddin Kzi Age 40 years. Occu. Agril.

¶372

1/E Tambubee w/o Shiddik Pathan Age 52 years. Occu. Agril.

¶373

1/F Kausarbee w/o Anwar Sayyad Age 51 years. Occu. Agril.

¶374

1/G Taslim w/o Sajid Pathan Age 48 years. Occu. Service

¶375

1/H Latifa w/o Jabbar Sayyad Age 46 years. Occu. Agril.

¶376

All R/o Kalegaon Taluka Ahemadpur Dist. Latur.

¶377

… APPLICANTS

¶378

¶379

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶380

VERSUS

¶381

The State of Maharashtra Through, The Dist. Collector Latur

¶382

The Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation through, The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, At. Latur.

¶383

The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, [Purna Project] Latur … RESPONDENTS

¶384

WITH

¶385

X-OBJECTION NO. 108 OF 2023 IN FA/1308/2019

¶386

Basavraj s/o Shivraj Irphale Age: 45 yrs, Occu: Agril.

¶387

Ravishankar s/o Shivraj Irphale Age: 40 yrs, Occu: Agril. R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. … APPLICANTS

¶388

VERSUS

¶389

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad)

¶390

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur … RESPONDENTS

¶391

WITH

¶392

X-OBJECTION NO. 109 OF 2023 IN FA/1309/2019

¶393

… APPLICANTS

¶394

Kashinath s/o Santram Kambale (Died) Through Legal Representatives.

¶395

¶396

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶397

1(1) Smt. Harubai w/o Kashinath Kamble Age. 65 years Occu. Agril.

¶398

1(2) Manoj s/o Kashinath Kamble Age. 25 years Occu. Agril.

¶399

1(3) Santram s/o Kashinath Kamble Age. 45 years Occu. Agril.

¶400

1(4) Umabai w/o Anil Gaikwad Age. 38 years Occu. Agril.

¶401

1(5) Sohambai w/o Dhanaji Suryawanshi Age. 36 years Occu. Agril.

¶402

1(6) Ramabai w/o Gautam Sonkamble Age. 34 years Occu. Agril.

¶403

1(7) Nitabai w/o Raju Kamble Age. 32 years Occu. Agril.

¶404

1(8) Mangalbai w/o Madhav Kamble Age. 30 years Occu. Agril.

¶405

Vishwanath s/o Santram Kamble Age 75 yrs. Occu. Agri R/o Ahemadpur Tq. Ahemadpur Dist Latur.

¶406

Sopan s/o Santram Kambe (Died) Through LRs.

¶407

3/1 Laxmibai w/o sopan Kamble Age 75 years. Occu. Agril.

¶408

3/2 Pandhari s/o sopan Kamble Age 53 years. Occu. Agril.

¶409

3/3 Dnyanoba s/o Sopan Kamble Age 50 years. Occu. Agril.

¶410

3/4 Vimalbai w/o Uttamrao Shirsagar Age 56 years. Occu. Agril.

¶411

¶412

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶413

3/5	Kama	lbai w/o Dayanand Kokate
	Age 4	7 years. Occu. Agril.
	All R/ VERS	Ahemadpur Tq. Ahemadpur Dist. Latur … APPLICANTS US
1.	The S Throu The D	tate of Maharashtra gh, ist. Collector Latur
2.	The G Devel The E Mino	odavari Marathwada Irrigation opment Corporation through, xecutive Engineer, Latur r Irrigation Division, At. Latur.
3.	The S [Purn	pl. Land Acquisition Officer, a Project] Latur … RESPONDENTS WITH
		X-OBJECTION NO. 110 2023 IN FA/1306/2019
	1.	Balaji s/o Narayan Desai [Died] Through LRs.
	1/A.	Smt. Vimalbai w/o Balaji Desai Age 52 years Occu. Agril.
	1/B.	Pranali D/o Balaji Desai Age 27 years Occu. Education
	1/C.	Prasanna s/o Balaji Desai Age 33 years Occu. Education.
	1/D.	Sainath s/o Balaji Desai Age 30 years Occu. Education
		All R/o Nanded Tq. and Dist. Latur … APPLICANTS
		VERSUS

¶414

¶415

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶416

1.	The State of Maharashtra Through, The Dist. Collector Latur
2.	The Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation through, The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, At. Latur.
3.	The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, [Purna Project] Latur WITH X-OBJECTION NO. 111 OF 2023 IN FA/1307/2019	… RESPONDENTS
	Hafizoddin s/o Variroddin Kazi Age 69 years. Occu. Agri. R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur VERSUS	… APPLICANT
1.	The State of Maharashtra Through, The Dist. Collector Latur
2.	The Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation through, The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, At. Latur.
3.	The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, [Purna Project] Latur WITH X-OBJECTION NO. 112 OF 2023 IN FA/ 1311/2019	… RESPONDENTS
1.	Machindra s/o Nagorao Gaikwad Age-69 yrs, Occu. Agri
2.	Sushila w/o Machindra Gaikwad Age 40 years. Occu. Agri	37

¶417

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶418

Nagesh s/o Machindra Gaikwad Age 37 years, Occu. Agri

¶419

Mangesh s/o Machindra Gaikwad Age 32 years, Occu. Agri

¶420

Shripal s/o Machindra Gaikwad Age 64 years, Occu. Agri

¶421

Pratibha D/o Machindra Gaikwad Age 34 years, Occu. Agri

¶422

Archana D/o Machindra Gaikwad Age 35 years, Occu. Agri All R/o Ahemadpur Tq. Ahemadpur Dist Latur. … APPLICANTS

¶423

VERSUS

¶424

The State of Maharashtra Through, The Dist. Collector Latur

¶425

The Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation through, The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, At. Latur.

¶426

The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, [Purna Project] Latur … RESPONDENTS

¶427

X-OBJECTION NO. 113 OF 2023 IN FA/1305/2019

¶428

Mehaboob Ahmed s/o Ajimoddin Kazi Age-69 yrs, Occu. Agri

¶429

Mujiboddin s/o Mehaboob Ahmed Kazi Age 36 yrs. Occu. Agri Both R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur … APPLICANTS 38

¶430

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶431

VERSUS

¶432

The State of Maharashtra Through, The Dist. Collector Latur

¶433

The Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation through, The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, At. Latur.

¶434

The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, [Purna Project] Latur

¶435

… RESPONDENTS

¶436

WITH

¶437

X-OBJECTION NO. 114 OF 2023 IN FA/1340/2019

¶438

Shrihari s/o Hanmant Navrange Age 62 years. Occu. Agri. R/o Ahemadpur Tq. Ahmadpur Dist. Latur

¶439

Narhari s/o Hanmant Navrange (Died) Through LRs.

¶440

2/1 Smt. Pushpabai w/o Narhari Navrange Age. 65 years Occu. Agril.

¶441

2/2 Kiran s/o Narhari Navrange Age. 45 years Occu. Agril.

¶442

2/3 Jayant s/o Narhari Navrange Age. 42 years Occu. Agril.

¶443

2/4 Rahul s/o Narhari Navrange Age. 35 years Occu. Agril.

¶444

2/5 Jyoti w/o Narayan Kamble Age. 48 years Occu. Agril.

¶445

2/6 Anjali w/o Ramesh Waghmare Age. 40 years Occu. Agril.

¶446

¶447

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶448

2/7 Megha w/o Siddharth Shelke Age. 38 years Occu. Agril. All R/o Aurangabad N2 Cidco Dist. Aurangabad. … APPLICANTS

¶449

VERSUS

¶450

1. The State of Maharashtra Through, The Dist. Collector Latur

¶451

1. The Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation through, The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, At. Latur.

¶452

1. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, [Purna Project] Latur … RESPONDENTS

¶453

WITH

¶454

X-OBJECTION NO. 115 OF 2023 IN FA/1304/2019

¶455

1. Sujatabai w/o Sheshrao Bansode Age-65 yrs, Occu. Agril. R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur … APPLICANT

¶456

VERSUS

¶457

1. The State of Maharashtra Through, The Dist. Collector Latur

¶458

1. The Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation through, The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, At. Latur.

¶459

1. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, [Purna Project] Latur … RESPONDENTS

¶460

… APPLICANTS

¶461

¶462

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶463

Mr.G.K. Sontakke, Advocate for applicant/applicants Mr. A.B. Girase, GP for respondent/State. Mr. S.G. Sangle, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶464

WITH

¶465

FIRST APPEAL NO. 4216 OF 2017

¶466

Manmath Narayan Shetkar (Desai), Through his LRs.

¶467

1.A Laxmibai Manmath Shetkar (Desai) Age:- 60 years, Occ. H.H.

¶468

1.B Archana Manmath Shetkar (Desai) Age:- 46 years, Occ. H.H.

¶469

1.C Satish Manmath Shetkar (Desai) Age:- 42 years, Occ. Business

¶470

1.D Sharan Manmath Shetkar (Desai) Age:- 38 years, Occ. Business

¶471

All R/o Ahamadpur, Tq. Ahamdpur, Dist. Latur.

¶472

Ravishankar S/o. Narayan Shetkar, Age : 40 years, Occu : Agri.,

¶473

Both R/o. Ahmedpur Tq. Ahmedpur Dist. Latur.

¶474

… APPELLANTS

¶475

VERSUS

¶476

State of Maharashtra Through : Collector, Latur.

¶477

The Special Land Acquisition Officer Purna Project, Latur.

¶478

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Latur.

¶479

… RESPONDENTS 41

¶480

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶481

Mr. P.P. More, Advocate for appellant nos.1A to 1D. Mr. A.B. Girase, GP for respondent/State. Mr. S.S. Dande, Advocate for respondent no.3.

¶482

WITH

¶483

FIRST APPEAL NO. 4363 OF 2016

¶484

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad)

¶485

The State of Maharashtra through The Collector, Latur.

¶486

Special Land Acquisition, Purna Project, Latur. … APPELLANTS

¶487

VERSUS

¶488

Manmath s/o Narayan Shetkar (Desai)(Died) Through LRs.

¶489

1.A Laxmibai Manmath Shetkar (Desai), Age:- 60 years, Occ. H.H,

¶490

1.B. Archana Manmath Shetkar (Desai), Age:- 46 years, Occ. H.H,

¶491

1.C. Satish Manmath Shetkar (Desai), Age:- 42 years, Occ. Business,

¶492

1.D. Sharan Manmath Shetkar (Desai), Age:- 38 years, Occ. Business, All R/o. Ahamadpur, Tq. Ahamdpur, Dist. Latur. … RESPONDENTS

¶493

¶494

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶495

Mr. S.G. Sangle, Advocate for appellant. Mr. A.B. Girase, GP for respondent/State. Mr.P.P. More, Advocate for respondent nos.1A to 1D.

¶496

WITH

¶497

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2324 OF 2018

¶498

1. Sangram S/o Kashinath Mahajan Age: 54 Years, Occu: Agril.

¶499

1. Mahesh S/o Sangram Mahajan Age: 21 Years, Occu: Agril. All R/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. ... APPELLANTS

¶500

VERSUS

¶501

1. The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur

¶502

1. The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … RESPONDENTS

¶503

WITH

¶504

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1123 OF 2019

¶505

Baburao S/o Shivling Wadkar Age; 59 years, Occu: Agril. R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. ... APPELLANT

¶506

VERSUS

¶507

1. The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur

¶508

1. The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … RESPONDENTS 43

¶509

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶510

WITH

¶511

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1409 OF 2019

¶512

	Smt. Rukminbai W/O Baburao Wadkar
	Age; 54 years, Occu: Agril. R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. ... APPELLANT
	VERSUS
1.	The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur
2.	The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.
	… RESPONDENTS WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2839 OF 2019
	Ram S/o Trimbakappa Mahajan, Age; 71 years, Occu: Agril. R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. ... APPELLANT
	VERSUS
1.	The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur
2.	The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … RESPONDENTS
	WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2840 OF 2019
	Samb s/o Trimbakappa Mahajan Age; 57 years, Occu: Agril. R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur.
	... APPELLANT VERSUS

¶513

¶514

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶515

1.	The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur
2.	The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … RESPONDENTS
	WITH
	FIRST APPEAL NO. 1655 OF 2024
	Baburao S/o Shivling Wadkar Age; 52 years, Occu: Agril. R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. ... APPELLANT VERSUS
1.	The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur
2.	The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … RESPONDENTS
	WITH
	FIRST APPEAL NO. 1656 OF 2024
	Ganesh S/o Manmath Wadkar Age; 32 years, Occu: Agril. R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. … APPELLANT VERSUS
1.	The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur.
2.	The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … RESPONDENTS 45

¶516

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶517

WITH

¶518

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1657 OF 2024

¶519

	Motiram S/o Shivling Wadkar
	Age; 49 years, Occu: Agril. R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. … APPELLANT VERSUS
1.	The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur.
2.	The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … RESPONDENTS
	WITH
	FIRST APPEAL NO. 1658 OF 2024
	Yusufoddin s/o Jamiroddin Kazi Age; 49 years, Occu: Agril. R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. … APPELLANT VERSUS
1.	The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur.
2.	The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.
	… RESPONDENTS WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1659 OF 2024
	Prabhavati W/o Laxman Wadje Age; 44 years, Occu: Agril. R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. ... APPELLANT

¶520

¶521

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶522

VERSUS

¶523

1.	The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur
2.	The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.
	… RESPONDENTS WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1660 OF 2024
	Manmath S/o Madhavrao Wadkar Age; 54 years, Occu: Agril. R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. ... APPELLANT
	VERSUS
1.	The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur
2.	The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.
	… RESPONDENTS WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2909 OF 2024
	Haribai W/o Shankar Mahajan (Dead) Through her LRs.
	1. Nagnath S/o. Shankarappa Mahajan Age: 55 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
	2. Panchwati W/o. Rajeshwar Bondge Age: 47 Years, Occu: Household,
	Both R/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur.
	3. Chaya W/o. Baswaraj Karanje
	Age: 45 Years, Occu: Household, 47

¶524

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶525

R/o. Ausa, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur.
... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation Division,
Latur.
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2956 OF 2024
1. Nagesh S/o Kedarnath Wadkar
Age: 22 Years, Occu: Agri.
2. Mahesh Kedarnath Wadkar
Age: 20 Years, Occu: Agril.
3. Shivbas S/o Kedarnath Wadkar
Age: 18 Years, Occu: Agril.
All R/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,
Dist. Latur.
... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Latur
2. The Executive Engineer,
Latur Minor Irrigation Division,
Latur.
… RESPONDENTS
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 325 OF 2025
Samb S/o. Shivling Wadkar (Dead)
Through its LRs
1. Mahanandabai W/o. Sambappa Warkad
Age: 70 Years, Occu: Household,
48

¶526

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶527

R/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur.

¶528

1. Savita W/o. Shivling Usturge Age: 53 Years, Occu: Household, R/o. Nanded, Tq. and Dist. Nanded.

¶529

1. Sunita W/o. Lingeshwar Nandagavale Age: 50 Years, Occu: Household, R/o. Wadwal (Nagnath), Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur.

¶530

1. Kalpana W/o. Trimbak Eshwarshette Age: 47 Years, Occu: Household, R/o. Deoni, Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur.

¶531

1. Rahul S/o. Sambappa Warkad Age: 42 Years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur.

¶532

1. Shakuntala W/o. Sangmeshwar Thonte Age: 40 Years, Occu: Household, R/o. Parali (Vaijnath), Parali (Vaijnath), Dist. Beed. ... APPELLANTS

¶533

VERSUS

¶534

1. The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur

¶535

1. The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … RESPONDENTS

¶536

WITH

¶537

FIRST APPEAL NO. 326 OF 2025

¶538

Vaijnath S/o. Shivling Wadkar (Dead) Through its LRs

¶539

¶540

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶541

Smt. Laxmibai Vaijnath Wadkar Age: 70 Years, Occu: Household, R/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur.

¶542

Smt. Shobha Vaijnath Akole Age: 47 Years, Occu: Household, R/o. Kalambar, Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded.

¶543

Sangameshwar Vaijnath Wadkar Age: 54 Years, Occu: Agril., R/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur.

¶544

Parvati Sambhaji Ashture Age: 40 Years, Occu: Household, R/o. Satala (Waygaon), Tq. Udgir, Dist. Latur.

¶545

Mahadevi Santosh Husnale Age: 38 Years, Occu: Household, R/o. Ukadgaon, Tq. Sonpeth, Dist. Parbhani. ... APPELLANTS

¶546

VERSUS

¶547

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur

¶548

The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … RESPONDENTS

¶549

_______________________________________________________________ Mr. V.B. Patil, Advocate for appellant. Mr. A.B. Girase, GP for respondent/State. Mr. S.G. Sangle, Advocate for respondent no.2. _______________________________________________________________

¶550

¶551

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶552

WITH

¶553

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2289 OF 2013

¶554

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad) VERSUS 1. Sangram s/o Kashinath Mahajan Age-50 yrs, Occ. Agri r/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur Dist Latur

¶555

... APPELLANT

¶556

Mahesh s/o Sangram Mahajan Age-17 yrs, Occu. Agri r/o as above

¶557

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur

¶558

… RESPONDENTS

¶559

WITH

¶560

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2290 OF 2013

¶561

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation Ltd, Aurangabad)

¶562

... APPELLANT

¶563

VERSUS

¶564

Motiram s/o Shivling Wadkar Age-45 yrs, Occu. Agri r/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur Dist Latur

¶565

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur … RESPONDENTS

¶566

¶567

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶568

WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2291 OF 2013

¶569

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad)

¶570

... APPELLANT

¶571

VERSUS

¶572

Samb s/o Shivling Wadkar Age-60 yrs, Occu. Agri r/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur Dist Latur

¶573

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur

¶574

… RESPONDENTS

¶575

WITH

¶576

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2292 OF 2013

¶577

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad)

¶578

... APPELLANT

¶579

VERSUS

¶580

Baburao s/o Shivling Wadkar Age-55 yrs, Occu. Agri r/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur Dist Latur

¶581

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur

¶582

… RESPONDENTS

¶583

¶584

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶585

WITH

¶586

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2293 OF 2013

¶587

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad)

¶588

... APPELLANT

¶589

VERSUS

¶590

Yusufoddin s/o Jamiroddin Kazi Age-45 yrs, Occu. Agri r/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur Dist Latur

¶591

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur … RESPONDENTS

¶592

WITH

¶593

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2294 OF 2013

¶594

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad)

¶595

... APPELLANT

¶596

VERSUS

¶597

Nagesh s/o Kedarnath Wadkar Age-17 yrs, Occ. Agri

¶598

Mahesh s/o Kedarnath Wadkar Age-15 yrs, Occu. Agri

¶599

Shivba s/o Kedarnath Wadkar Age-13 yrs, Occu. Agri All minors U/G of mother Sow. Anjanabai w/o Kedarnath Wadkar Age-Major yrs, Occu. Household r/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur Dist Latur

¶600

¶601

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶602

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur … RESPONDENTS

¶603

WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2295 OF 2013

¶604

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad) ... APPELLANT VERSUS 1. Smt. Prabhavati w/o Laxman Wadje Age-40 yrs, Occu. Agri r/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur Dist Latur 2. The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur … RESPONDENTS WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2296 OF 2013 The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad) ... APPELLANT VERSUS 1. Samb s/o Laxman Shetkar Age-48 yrs, Occu. Agri r/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur Dist Latur

¶605

¶606

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶607

2.	The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur … RESPONDENTS
	WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2297 OF 2013
	The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad) ... APPELLANT
	VERSUS
1.	Sow. Rukminibai w/o Baburao Wadkar Age-53 yrs, Occu. Agri r/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur Dist Latur
2.	The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur … RESPONDENTS
	WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2298 OF 2013
	The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad) ... APPELLANT
	VERSUS
1.	Samb s/o Trimbakappa Mahajan Age-53 yrs, Occu. Agri r/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur Dist Latur 55

¶608

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶609

2.	The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur … RESPONDENTS
	WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2299 OF 2013
	The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad) ... APPELLANT
	VERSUS
1.	Ganesh s/o Manmath Wadkar Age-60 yrs, Occu. Agri r/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur Dist Latur
2.	The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur … RESPONDENTS
	WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2300 OF 2013
	The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad) ... APPELLANT
	VERSUS
1.	Vaijanath s/o Shivling Wadkar Age-60 yrs, Occu. Agri r/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur Dist Latur 56

¶610

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶611

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur

¶612

… RESPONDENTS

¶613

WITH

¶614

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2301 OF 2013

¶615

	The Executive Engineer,
	Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad) ... APPELLANT
	VERSUS
1.	Ram s/o Trimbakappa Mahajan Age-67 yrs, Occu. Agri r/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur Dist Latur
2.	The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur … RESPONDENTS WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2302 OF 2013
	The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad) ... APPELLANT
	VERSUS
1.	Smt. Haribai w/o Shankar Mahajan Age-58 yrs, Occu. Agri r/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur Dist Latur
2.	The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur … RESPONDENTS 57

¶616

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶617

WITH

¶618

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2303 OF 2013

¶619

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad)

¶620

... APPELLANT

¶621

VERSUS

¶622

Manmath s/o Madhavrao Wadkar Age-50 yrs, Occu. Agri r/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur Dist Latur

¶623

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur

¶624

… RESPONDENTS

¶625

_______________________________________________________________ Mr. S.G. Sangle, Advocate for appellant. Mr. A.B. Girase, GP for respondent/State. Mr. V.B. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.1.

¶626

CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND VAISHALI PATIL – JADHAV, JJ. RESERVED ON : 18.12.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 16.03.2026

¶627

J U D G M E N T [Per Vaishali Patil – Jadhav, J.] :

¶628

. Admit. Heard finally with the consent of learned advocates for the parties.

¶629

¶630

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶631

(I) Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court vide judgment and award dated 21.03.2012 in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 94/2011 (Old No. 56/2008), 95/2011 (Old No.57/2008), 96/2011 (Old No. 58/2008), 97/2011 (Old No.59/2008), 98/2011 (Old No. 60/2008), 99/2011 (Old No.61/2008), 100/2011 (Old No. 62/2008) and 312/2011 (Old No.158/2008), First Appeal No. 1098/2018 is preferred by the land owner/claimant. And, dissatisfied with enhancing the amount of compensation, the acquiring body – Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation (“GMIDC”) has preferred First Appeal Nos. 802/2014, 803/2014, 804/2014, 805/2014, 806/2014, 807/2014, 808/2014 and 809/2014 against the same references. In seven First Appeals filed by the acquiring body – GMIDC, the land owners/claimants have preferred X-Objection Nos. 101/2023 in F.A. No. 807/2014, 102/2023 in F.A. No. 806/2014, 103/2023 in F.A. No. 805/2014, 104/2023 in F.A. No. 809/2014, 105/2023 in F.A. No. 803/2014, 106/2023 in F.A. No. 808/2014 and 61/2024 in F.A. No. 804/2014.

¶632

(II) Dissatisfied with enhancing the amount of compensation, the acquiring body – GMIDC has preferred First Appeal Nos. 2266/2013, 2267/2013, 2268/2013, 2269/2013, 2270/2013, 2271/2013,

¶633

¶634

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶635

2272/2013, 2273/2013 and 2274/2013 against the judgment and award dated 09.02.2012 passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 711/2008, 712/2008, 713/2008, 714/2008, 715/2008, 716/2008, 717/2008, 718/2008 and 719/2008. In the First Appeals filed by the acquiring body – GMIDC, the land owners/claimants have preferred X-Objection (Stamp) No. 39144/2016 in F.A. No. 2273/2013, X-Objection (Stamp) No.41987/2017 in F.A. No. 2269/2013, X-Objection (Stamp) No. 42048/2017 in F.A. No. 2270/2013, X-Objection (Stamp) No. 18614/2020 in F.A. No. 2274/2013, X-Objection Nos. 51/2022 in F.A. No. 2272/2013, 168/2024 in F.A. No. 2266/2013, 210/2025 in F.A. No. 2267/2013, 211/2025 in F.A. No. 2268/2013 and 212/2025 in F.A. No. 2271/2013.

¶636

(III) Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court vide judgment and award dated 11.10.2010 in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 150/2007, 151/2007, 152/2007, 153/2007, 154/2007, 155/2007, 156/2007, 171/2007, 51/2008, 52/2008, 54/2008 and 55/2008, First Appeal No. 603/2011 is preferred by the land owner/claimant and dissatisfied with enhancing the amount of compensation First Appeal Nos. 1304/2019, 1305/2019, 1306/2019, 1307/2019, 1308/2019, 1309/2019,

¶637

¶638

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶639

1310/2019, 1311/2019, 1340/2019, 1341/2019, 1342/2019 and 1343/2019 are preferred by the acquiring body – GMIDC. In eleven First Appeals filed by the acquiring body – GMIDC, the land owners/claimants have preferred X-Objection (Stamp) No.10772/2019 in F.A. No. 1343/2019, X-Objection Nos. 91/2022 in F.A. No. 1310/2019, 48/2023 in F.A. No. 1342/2019, 108/2023 in F.A. No. 1308/2019, 109/2023 in F.A. No. 1309/2019, 110/2023 in F.A. No. 1306/2019, 111/2023 in F.A. No. 1307/2019, 112/2023 in F.A. No. 1311/2019, 113/2023 in F.A. No. 1305/2019, 114/2023 in F.A. No. 1340/2019 and 115/2023 in F.A. No. 1304/2019.

¶640

(IV) Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court vide judgment and award dated 02.02.2011 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 884/2008 First Appeal No. 4216/2017 is preferred by the land owner/claimant. And, dissatisfied with enhancing the amount of compensation, the acquiring body – GMIDC has preferred First Appeal No. 4363/2016 against the same reference.

¶641

(V) Dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court vide judgment and award dated 16.12.2011 in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 695/2008, 696/2008, 697/2008, 698/2008, 699/2008, 700/2008, 701/2008, 702/2008, 703/2008,

¶642

¶643

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶644

705/2008, 706/2008, 707/2008, 708/2008, 709/2008 and 710/2008,

¶645

the land owners/claimants have preferred First Appeal Nos. 2324/2018, 1123/2019, 1409/2019, 2839/2019, 2840/2019, 1655/2024, 1656/2024, 1657/2024, 1658/2024, 1659/2024, 1660/2024, 2909/2024, 2956/2024, 325/2025 and 326/2025. And, dissatisfied with enhancing the amount of compensation, the acquiring body – GMIDC has preferred First Appeal Nos. 2289/2013, 2290/2013, 2291/2013, 2292/2013, 2293/2013, 2294/2013, 2295/2013, 2296/2013, 2297/2013, 2298/2013, 2299/2013, 2300/2013, 2301/2013, 2302/2013 and 2303/2013 against the same references.

¶646

In the aforesaid five groups of first appeals, the agricultural lands owned and possessed by the claimants, situated at Ahmedpur, Tal. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur came to be acquired by the State Government for GMIDC, for the construction of “Kalegaon Storage Tank, Ahmedpur,” Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. Notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter "the L.A. Act") were published on 03.10.2004, 07.07.2006, 25.02.2006, 07.07.2006 and 03.12.2005 in Group Nos. I to V, respectively.

¶647

¶648

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶649

Thus, these five groups of first appeals are being taken up together for hearing and decided by this common judgment as the notifications under Section 4 of the L.A. Act are issued contemporaneously and lands of the claimants are acquired for the same project.

¶650

Learned advocates appearing for the claimants and X-objectors submit that the land owners whose lands were acquired for the same project i.e. “Kalegaon Storage Tank, Ahmedpur” had filed First Appeal No. 1089 of 2015 (Kiran Ramrao Hivare Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) with companion matters assailing the awards dated 05.02.2008, 06.02.2008 and 05.02.2008 passed by the Reference Court. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Coram: Sunil P. Deshmukh and R.G. Avachat) after evaluation of evidence partly allowed the First Appeals, by common judgment dated 16.09.2019 (hereinafter referred to as “ parity judgment ”) and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 75/- per sq. ft. for non-agricultural lands and Rs.60/- per sq. ft. for other lands and also modified the award to the extent of granting interest from the date of award instead of granting from the date of publication of Section 4 notification as awarded by the Reference Court. Learned advocates for the claimants would therefore urge that since the claimants have also lost the lands against acquisition for the

¶651

¶652

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶653

same project, by issuance of contemporaneous notifications under Section 4, which are in proximity to one another and most importantly the evidence in both cases being the same, they are entitled to parity in compensation.

¶654

Learned Advocate Mr. A.V. Sakolkar appearing for the claimants, while arguing First Appeal No. 1098/2018 would submit that, under Section 4 of the L.A. Act, notification is required to be published in three stages firstly it should be published in Official Gazette, secondly it should be published in two daily newspapers circulated in the locality and thirdly public notice of such notification is required to be given at a convenient place of the village of which the lands are proposed to be acquired. And last of the dates of such publication and giving of such notice shall be considered as the last date of publication of notification under Section 4 of the L.A. Act which is 03.10.2004 in respect of First Appeal No.1098/2018, wherein the award dated 16.10.2006 is challenged. He would submit that this Court while enhancing the compensation in the parity judgment has considered the sale deeds dated 10.02.2004 in respect of Survey No. 88/1/1 and 15.04.2004 in respect of Survey No. 88/1/2 from the village Ahmedpur, which have also been relied on by the present claimants in their respective references. These sale instances relied by the claimants

¶655

¶656

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶657

are prior to the date of Section 4 notification dated 03.10.2004. He would submit that those sale deeds are executed after taking permission of the Charity Commissioner, as the lands were sold by way of tender process and not by auction process as argued by Acquiring Body.

¶658

He would submit that, in the parity judgment, this Court has observed that, the Survey No. 2 is in close proximity with the acquired lands. Hence, the price range of rates of sale deeds of Survey No. 2 have been considered while fixing the compensation of acquired lands. It is submitted that the same Survey No. 2 is in close proximity with the acquired lands in the present appeals and as the lands were acquired for the same project, it would be unfair to discriminate between the land owners, to pay more to some and less to others, when the purpose of acquisition is the same and lands are identical and similar.

¶659

He would also submit that for the purpose of compensation for trees, the claimants have adduced evidence of CW-2 Dr. Keshav Ramrao Pawar at Exhibit 21, which should have been accepted by the Reference Court in its entirety, and the price should have been enhanced accordingly, instead of giving only 50% rise over the compensation awarded by the SLAO.

¶660

¶661

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶662

Lastly he prayed that compensation at the rate of Rs. 60/- per sq.ft., be granted for the acquired lands as granted in the parity judgment and prayed for enhancement in compensation for trees.

¶663

Learned advocates Mr. G.K. Sontakke, Mr. V.B Patil and Mr. S. S. Halkude adopted the arguments of learned Advocate Mr. A. V. Sakolkar and claimed parity and prayed for compensation at the rate of Rs. 60/per sq. ft.

¶664

All the advocates would submit that the Acquiring Body/State has

¶665

not adduced any evidence before the Reference Court except filing of a written statement.

¶666

The various judgments relied by learned advocates for the claimants/X-objectors are discussed hereinbelow :-

¶667

To point out the factors required to be taken into consideration while determining the potentiality of land, learned advocates for the claimants/X-objectors have relied on the following judgments:

¶668

Collector, Raigarh Vs. Harsing Thakur; AIR 1979 SC 472

¶669

P. Ram Reddy Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority; 1995 DGLS (SC) 148

¶670

¶671

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶672

To substantiate the contention that sale instances relating to

¶673

smaller pieces of land can be considered while determining compensation for large tracts of land, learned advocates for the claimants/X-objectors have relied on the following judgments:

¶674

Bhagwathula Samanna Vs. Special Tahsildar and Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality, Visakhapatnam; 1991 DGLS (SC) 477

¶675

Thakusibhai Devjibhai and Ors. Vs. Executive Engineer, Gujarat and Anr.; 2001 (2) LACC 319

¶676

Executive Engineer (C), MSEB, Nagapur Vs. Uttamrao Bapurao Raut and Ors.; 2009 (6) ALL MR 827

¶677

Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. Vs. M.K. Rafiq Saheb; 2011(8-9) SBR 494

¶678

To fortify the submission regarding the applicability of the principle of parity and the settled principles governing determination of compensation in land acquisition proceedings, learned advocates for the claimants/X-objectors have relied on the following judgments:

¶679

Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special LAO; 1988 Bom.L.R. (90) 282

¶680

Union of India Vs. Bal Ram; 2004 DGLS (SC) 59

¶681

Union of India Vs. Pramod Gupta and Ors.; AIR 2005 SC 3708 (1)

¶682

Bayaji Tatya Kalunge Vs. State of Maharashtra; 2007 (Supp.) Bom.C.R. 771

¶683

Special LAO Vs. M.K. Rafiq; 2011 (6) Mh.L.J. 9

¶684

¶685

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶686

Salaha Begaum Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer; 2012 DGLS (SC) 650

¶687

Ambaji Dharma Pardeshi Vs. State of Maharashtra; Civil Appeal No. 5088-5089 of 2013

¶688

Dhiraj Singh (D) TR. Vs. Haryana State; MANU/SC/0778/2014

¶689

Pehlad Ram Vs. Haryana Urban Authority; 2014 R.C.R. (Civil) (1) 316

¶690

Jagmal Vs. State of U.P. ; Civil Misc. Review No. 1744702 of 2015

¶691

Madhukanta M. Chinchani and Ors. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr.; 2016 DGLS (SC) 334

¶692

Ali Mohammad Beigh and Ors. Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir; 2017 DGLS (SC) 316

¶693

Narendra and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.; 2017 DGLS (SC) 926

¶694

Ningappa Thotappa Angadi Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors.; MANU/SC/1745/2019

¶695

G. Hanumantharao Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Shimoga; AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 310

¶696

Ajaipal Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.; 2021 DGLS (SC) 495

¶697

Anil Kumar Soti and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh; 2021 DGLS (SC) 804

¶698

State of Haryana Vs. Subhash Chander ;2023 Scale (2) 588 19. Kamlabai Ganeshsingh Parihar Vs. State of Maharashtra; 2023 DGLS (Bom) 2973

¶699

Priyadarshan Bharti Vs. State of Maharashtra; 2024 DGLS (Bom.) 3270

¶700

Krishan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.; 2025 DGLS (SC) 692

¶701

¶702

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶703

To emphasize the contention that when several sale exemplars relating to similar lands are available, the highest bonafide sale exemplar must be considered, learned advocates for the claimants/Xobjectors have relied on the judgment in Manohar and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.; 2025 DGLS (SC) 998

¶704

Learned advocates for the claimants/X-objectors have relied on the judgment in Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, Nagpur Vs. Laxman Seetaram Neulkar (AIR Online 2020 Bom 1264) to contend that if the true market value of the land is more than the rate claimed by the landowner, it is the duty of the Court to award just and fair compensation, and compensation can be awarded even more than what is claimed.

¶705

In support of their contention that no fault can be found in the valuer's report, learned advocates for the claimants/X-objectors have relied on the judgment in Pandhari Dhondiba Nukulwad Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2020 (2) Mh.L.J. 412) , wherein it is observed that objection to a valuation report cannot be taken merely on the ground that prior notice was not given by the expert, as the valuer was engaged by the claimants and there is no requirement in law to issue

¶706

¶707

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶708

notice to the government while carrying out valuation of trees through a private valuer.

¶709

Reliance has also been placed on the judgment in Chindha Fakira Patil Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon (AIR 2012 SC 481) to contend that expert valuation of fruit-bearing trees ought to be considered and should not be rejected in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.

¶710

Controverting the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants, learned Advocate Mr. S. G. Sangle appearing for the acquiring body opposed the appellants’ claim for compensation on the basis of parity. He would submit that, the rates granted in the parity judgment cannot be applied ipso facto to the facts of the instant case as the material evidence which formed basis for determination of market value was essentially sale instances from Survey No. 2 whereas in the present appeals, the claimants have relied on sale deeds dated 10.02.2004 and 15.04.2004 of Survey No. 88/1/2 which are though discussed in the parity judgment, the price is not fixed on its basis. The sale deeds have been executed in favour of the family members or persons known to the claimants. The sale instances were sham, collusive transactions were entered into to jack up prices of lands to inflate market value of acquired land. The sale instances are post

¶711

¶712

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶713

Section 4 notification as the Section 4 notification was published in official gazette on 01.01.2004 and the sale instances are dated 10.02.2004 and 15.04.2004. Moreover, the sale instances are a result of auction sales and auction sales do not furnish a sale guide for determination of market value and hence the Reference Court should not have relied on these sale instances.

¶714

He would submit that acquired lands were purely agricultural, were from no development zone, sale instances relied were essentially auction purchase transactions, sale instances are not genuine, lacked bonafides, were commercial transactions, the chronological sale transaction indicates knowledge and not a mere coincidence, hence in view of submissions, appeals filed by the acquiring body be allowed and appeals filed by the claimants be dismissed.

¶715

Learned Government Pleader Mr. A. B. Girase, appearing for the State and learned Advocate Mr. Ram Deshpande appearing for the acquiring body, adopted the arguments of learned Advocate Mr. S. G. Sangle.

¶716

The various judgments relied by learned advocates for the acquiring body/State are discussed hereinbelow :-

¶717

¶718

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶719

To buttress the submission that element of competition in auction sales renders them unsafe guides for determining the market value, learned advocates appearing for the acquiring body and the State have relied on the judgment in Karnataka Housing Board Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag & Ors.; 2011 (2) SCC 246, wherein it is held that:

¶720

“There is therefore every likelihood of auction price being either higher or lower than the real market price, depending upon the nature of sale. As a result, courts are wary of relying upon auction sale transactions when other regular traditional sale transactions are available while determining the market value of the acquired land. This Court in Raj Kumar v. Haryana State observed that, the element of competition in auction sales makes them unsafe guides for determining the market value.”

¶721

Reliance is also placed on the following judgments which reiterate the same principle :

¶722

Rajkumar & Ors. Vs. Haryana State & Ors.; 2007 (7) SCC 609

¶723

Major Gen. Kapil Mehra & Ors. Vs. Union of India; 2015 (2) SCC 262

¶724

Barla Ram Reddy Vs. State of Telangana; 2025 DGLS (SC) 5059

¶725

¶726

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶727

To point out the settled position of law that bona fide sale transactions should be considered while determining the market value and not got-up sale instances executed with prior knowledge of the proposed acquisition, reliance is placed on the judgment in Land Acquisition Officer, Eluru Vs. Jasti Rohini reported in 1995 (1) SCC 717 ,

¶728

“The reasonable method to determine the market value of the acquired land is on the evidence of transactions of bonafide sales of acquired land, but not on evidence of sales of such land got up having had knowledge of the proposed acquisition, the former would furnish reasonable basis to determine the compensation. In its absence, bonafide sales but not manipulated sales of the lands in the neighborhood possessed of same or similar quality and having the same or similar advantages would give an unerring assurance to the court to determine just and proper compensation. Such sales must not be established as a fact by examining either the vendor or the vendee. Marking of certified copies of sale deeds are not proof of either the contents or the circumstances in which it came to be executed. Bonafide sale or series of sales of small pieces of land do not furnish the sole basis to determine market value. Bonafide sales may furnish evidence of the market conditions for consideration. Fixation of market value on the basis of the basic valuation register is, therefore, illegal and unsustainable.”

¶729

Learned advocates have also relied on the following judgments in

¶730

which the similar principle is reiterated:

¶731

M.V. K. Gundarao Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer,

¶732

(LAO) ,Narasaraopet ; (1996) 3 SCC 129

¶733

¶734

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶735

2. Trishala Jain Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Anr. ; AIR 2011 SC 2458

¶736

Controverting the submissions of the claimants, learned advocates appearing for the acquiring body and the State, have relied on the judgment in Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Poona reported in (1988) 3 SCC 751, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that “Only genuine instances have to be taken into account. Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of acquisition.”

¶737

The learned advocates appearing for the acquiring body and the State have relied on the judgment in Shaji Kuriakose Vs. I.O.C. reported in 2001 (7) SCC 650, to indicate the factors required to be satisfied while relying upon comparable sale instances for determining the market value.

¶738

"The factors laid down are: (1) the sale must be a genuine transaction, that (2) the sale deed must have been executed at the time proximate to the date of issue of notification under Section 4 of the Act, that (3) the land covered by the sale must be in the vicinity of the acquired land, that (4) the land covered by the sales must be similar to the acquired land, and that (5) the size of plot of the land covered by the sales be comparable to the land acquired."

¶739

¶740

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶741

Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Dollar Company, Madras Vs. Collector of Madras reported in 1975 (2) SCC 730 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:

¶742

" It is true that compensation for compulsory acquisition, as governed by Section 23, gives high priority to the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under S. 4, sub-s. (1). But what is market value? It is a common place of this branch of jurisprudence that the main criterion is what a willing purchaser would pay a willing vendor. Ordinarily a party will be entitled to get the amount that he actually and willingly paid for a particular property, provided the transaction be bona fide and entered into with due regard to the prevalent market conditions and is proximate in time to the relevant date under S. 23. We may even say that the best evidence of the value of property is the sale of the very property to which the claimant is a party."

¶743

While opposing the claim of the claimants on the point of credibility of evidence, expert evidence and report, the learned advocates appearing for the State have relied on the judgment in the case of Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Works, Jalgaon Vs. Vitthal Damodar Patil and Anr. reported in (2019) 7 SCC 225 wherein it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that, the High Court in that case had misapplied the decision in Chindha Fakira Patil. “There is no proper analysis of the oral evidence which has come on record in the present case and more so the efficacy of lengthy cross-examination of the said witness by the appellant in respect of matters such as his eligibility, competence and including credibility, reliability and

¶744

¶745

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶746

admissibility of the evidence given by him regarding the contents of the valuation report.”

¶747

Learned advocates have also relied on the judgment in State of H.P. Vs. Jai Lal reported in 1999 DGLS (SC) 964 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed :

¶748

"(17) SECTION 45 of the Evidence Act which makes opinion of experts admissible lays down that when the court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identify of handwriting, or finger impressions are relevant facts. Therefore, in order to bring the evidence of a witness as that of an expert it has to be shown that he has made a special study of the subject or acquired a special experience therein or in other words that he is skilled and has adequate knowledge of the subject.

¶749

(18) AN expert is not a witness of fact. His evidence is really of an advisory character. The duty of an expert witness is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the conclusions so as to enable the Judge to form his independent judgment by the application of this criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case. The scientific opinion evidence, if intelligible, convincing and tested becomes a factor and often an important factor for consideration along with the other evidence of the case. The credibility of such a witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the data and materials furnished which form the basis of his conclusions.

¶750

(19) THE report submitted by an expert does not go in evidence automatically. He is to be examined as a witness in court and has to face cross-examination. This court in the case of Hazi Mohammed Ikramul Haque v. State of West Bengal concurred with the finding of the High court in not placing any reliance upon the evidence of an expert witness on the ground that his evidence was merely an opinion unsupported by any reasons."

¶751

¶752

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶753

The same principle has been followed in the case of State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Bhimdeo Rattu Rathod and Ors. reported in 2022 DGLS (Bom.) 345 .

¶754

Learned advocates for the acquiring body and State have relied upon the judgment in Union of India vs. Pramod Gupta, reported in AIR 2005 SC 3708, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed the parameters to be considered while determining the market value of acquired land for the purpose of fixing the amount of compensation, which are reproduced below:

¶755

"23. While determining the amount of compensation payable in respect of the lands acquired by the State, indisputably the market value therefor has to be ascertained. There exist different modes therefor.

¶756

The best method, as is well-known, would be the amount which a willing purchaser would pay to the owner of the land. In absence of any direct evidence, the court, however, may take recourse to various other known methods. Evidences admissible therefor inter alia would be judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisitions of lands made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages. Such a judgment and award in absence of any other evidence like deed of sale, report of expert and other relevant evidence would have only evidentiary value."

¶757

Reliance is also placed on Bangaru Narasingha Rao Naidu and

¶758

Ors. Vs. Revenue Divisional Officer, Vizianagaram reported in (1980) 1

¶759

SCC 575 to emphasize that the best evidence of market value is

¶760

¶761

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶762

afforded by genuine sale transactions relating to the acquired land itself, provided, the authenticity of such transactions is not in doubt.

¶763

Similar principle governing determination of the market value on the basis of genuine and comparable sale instances have also been reiterated in Special Land Acquisition Officer, BTDA, Bagalkot Vs. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib reported in (2002) 3 SCC 688 and State of Goa Vs. Kissan V. Gaonkar reported in 2005 (2) Goa LR 95

¶764

To contend that no prudent person would come forward to purchase a vast extent of land on square feet basis, reliance is placed on Shakuntalabai and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1996) 2 SCC 152, wherein it is held :

¶765

" 5. It is seen that the reference court blissfully overlooked the admission of the owner on the surmise that it is an estimate made by the claimant and the evidence of the sale deeds under Exs. 38 and 44 being prevailing prices, it acted thereon and determined the compensation. The approach of the reference court is clearly illegal and that of the High Court is quite correct and it was the only way in which the market value could be determined on the face of the evidence on record. The reference court committed manifest error in determining the compensation on the basis of sq. ft. When lands of an extent of 20 acres are offered for sale in an open market, no willing and prudent purchaser would come forward to purchase that vast extent of land on sq. ft. basis. Therefore, the reference court has to consider the valuation sitting on the armchair of a willing prudent hypothetical vendee and to put a question to itself whether

¶766

¶767

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶768

in given circumstances, he would agree to purchase the land on sq. ft. basis. No feat of imagination is necessary to reach the conclusion. The answer is obviously no. This aspect of the matter was totally ignored by the reference court and mechanically accepted the two sale deeds to enhance the compensation at a value of nearly Rs 35,000 per acre. In State of M.P. v. Shantabhail and V.M. Salgoacar & Brother Ltd. v. Union of India², this Court had accepted the principle that when the owner himself has purchased the land under acquisition, the consideration mentioned in the sale deed would form the basis to determine the market value. Though the High Court has relied on the sale deeds under Exs. 65 and 66 relating to the lands in Nityanand Nagar Colony, it is also necessary to go into that aspect of the matter in the view we have stated above."

¶769

On the point that sale instances relating to smaller pieces of land cannot be considered while deciding claims or fixing compensation as to large pieces of land, learned advocates appearing for the acquiring body and the State have relied on the judgment in the case of Prithvi Raj

¶770

Taneja Vs. The State of M.P. and Anr. reported in AIR 1977 SC 1560 wherein it is held in Para 6 that,

¶771

"..... We agree with the High Court that the price paid for small plots of land cannot provide a safe criterion for determining the amount of compensation for a vast area of land. We may in this context refer to a recent judgment in the case of Smt. Padma Uppal Vs. State of Punjab, C.A. Nos. 2339 and 2403 of 1972, D/23-8-1976 : (reported in AIR 1977 SCC 580) wherein this Court observed that it is well settled that in determining compensation the value fetched for small plots of land cannot be applied to the lands covering a very large area and that the large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots area sold."

¶772

¶773

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶774

Same principle is reiterated in the following judgments :

¶775

Smt. Padma Uppal and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr.; (1977) 1 SCC 330

¶776

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs. Digambar Bhimashankar Tandale and Ors.; 1997 (1) Bom.C.R. 582

¶777

Karnataka Urban Water supply and Drainage Board, etc. Vs. K.S. Gangadharappa and Another ; 2009 DGLS (SC) 584

¶778

In support of his contention that, it is the duty of the State or federal government to see that the compensation is just, not merely to the individual whose property is taken but, to the public which is to pay for it, learned advocates appearing for the acquiring body and the State have relied on the judgment in Dollar Company, Madras Vs. Collector of Madras reported in 1975 (2) SCC 730 and also on Union of India Vs Pramod Gupta (D) by LRs and others wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed, “The Courts will also have to take into consideration the enormity of the financial implication of enhancement in view of the size of the land acquired for a particular project.”

¶779

The learned advocate appearing for the acquiring body has placed reliance on the following judgments to substantiate the point that Sale Deeds executed post section 4 notification cannot be relied upon:

¶780

A. Natesam Pillai Vs. Sp. Tahasildar, Land Acquisition Tiruchy ; (2010) 9 SCC 118

¶781

¶782

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶783

2. Himmat Singh & Ors. Vs. State of M.P, & Anr. ; (2013) 16 SCC 392

¶784

While refuting the claim of the claimants on the ground of parity, learned advocates for the acquiring body/State have placed reliance on various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, to highlight that it has been consistently held by the Courts that compensation cannot be determined by mechanically following earlier awards or judgments relating to other lands. Judgments and awards not inter partes are not binding for determination of market value and may only constitute as a piece of evidence which can be relied upon only if the lands are proved to be comparable in terms of location, potentiality and other relevant advantages. These principles of law are laid down in the following judgments :

¶785

In Smt. Padma Uppal and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. reported in (1977) 1 SCC 330 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as, "The contention of counsel for the appellants that compensation should have been awarded treating the entire land as potential building area is devoid of substance. It is true that the land in question constitutes one block but it cannot be overlooked that the entire area thereof is not similarly situate and does not possess the same or similar advantages and benefits."

¶786

¶787

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶788

Basant Kumar & others Vs. Union of India & others, reported in

¶789

1996(11) SCC 542 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para:

¶790

"5. Shri N.C. Jain, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, The question is: whether the appellants are entitled to the same compensation as was determined by the High Court in the appeals arising out of Raghubir Singh's came and Chet Ram's case? It has been firmly settled law by beadrole of decisions of this Court that the Judge determining the compensation under Section 23(1) should sit in the arm chair of a willing prudent purchaser in an open market and see whether he would offer the same amount proposed to be fixed as market value as a willing and prudent buyer for the same or similar land, i.e., land possessing all the advantageous features and of same extent. This test should always be kept in view and answer affirmatively, taking in to consideration all relevant facts and circumstances. If feats of imagination are allowed to sway he out steps his domain of judicial decision and lands in misconduct amenable to disciplinary law. We have gone through the record and judgments in Chet Ram's case and Raghubir Singh's case decided by the two Division Benches. The learned judges have adopted the principal that the entire lands in the village shall be treated as one unit and the compensation shall uniformly be determined on that basis. The principal is wholly unsustainable in law and cannot be a valid ground for determination of compensation. It is common knowledge that even in the same village, no two lands command same market value. The lands abutting main road or national highway command higher market value and as the location goes Backward, market value of interior land would less even for same kind of land. It is a settled legal position that the lands possessed of only similar potentiality or the value with similar advantages offer comparable parity of the value; it is common knowledge that the lands in the village spread over the vast extent. In this case it is seen that land is as vast as admeasuring 1669 bighas, 18 biswas of land in the village. So, all lands cannot and should not be classified as possessed of same market value. Burden is always

¶791

¶792

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶793

on the claimant to prove the market value and the Court should adopt realistic standards and pragmatic approach in evaluation of the evidence. No doubt, each individual have different parcels of the land out of that vast land. If that principle is accepted as propounded by the High Court, irrespective of the quality of the land, all will be entitled to the same compensation. That principal is not the correct approach in law. The doctrine of equality in determination and payment of same compensation for all claimants involved in the same notification is not good principal acceptable for the aforestated reasons. When both the lands are proved to be possessed of same advantages, features etc, then only equal compensation is permissible.

¶794

It is then to be seen that the learned judges have further pointed Therefore, the principle laid down by the Court in the said two cases is obviously illegal and cannot form a legal basis, though these judgments became final, we cannot repeat, on principal of parity, same illegality."

¶795

Manoj Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in AIR 2018 SC (Supp.) 247 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para:

¶796

"14. In our opinion, the High Court could not have placed an outright reliance on the decision of Swaran Singh's case, without considering the nature of transaction relied upon in the said decision. The decision could not have been applied ipso facto to the facts of the instant case. In such cases, where such judgments/awards are relied on as evidence, though they are relevant, but cannot be said to be binding with respect to the determination of the price, that has to depend on the evidence adduced in the case. However, in the instant case, it appears that the land in Swaran Singh's case was situated just across the road as observed by the High Court as such it is relevant evidence but not binding. As such it could have been taken into consideration due to the nearness of the area, but at the same time what was

¶797

¶798

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶799

the nature of the transaction relied upon in the said case was also required to be looked into in an objective manner. Such decisions in other cases cannot be adopted without examining the basis for determining compensation whether sale transaction referred to therein can be relied upon or not and what was the distance, size and also bonafide nature of transaction before such judgments/awards are relied on for deciding the subsequent cases. It is not open to accepting determination in a mechanical manner without considering the merit. Such determination cannot be said to be binding. We have come across several decisions where the High Court is adopting the previous decisions as binding.

¶800

It is not proper to ignore the evidence adduced in the case at hand. The compensation cannot be determined by blindly following the previous award/judgment. It has to be considered only a piece of evidence not beyond that. Court has to apply the judicial mind and is supposed not to follow the previous awards without due consideration of the facts and circumstances and evidence adduced in the case in question.

¶801

The awards and judgment in the cases of others not being inter parties are not binding as precedents. Recently, we have seen the trend of the courts to follow them blindly probably under the misconception of the concept of equality and fair treatment. The courts are being swayed away and this approach in the absence of and similar nature and situation of land is causing more injustice and tantamount to giving equal treatment in the case of unequal's. As per situation of a village, nature of land its value differ from the distance to distance even two to three- kilometer distance may also make the material difference in value. Land abutting Highway may fetch higher value but not land situated in interior villages.

¶802

The previous awards/judgments are the only piece of evidence at par with comparative sale transactions. The similarity of the land covered by previous judgment/award is required to be proved like any other comparative exemplar. In case previous award/judgment is based on exemplar, which is not similar or acceptable, previous award/judgment of court cannot be said to

¶803

¶804

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶805

be binding. Such determination has to be out rightly rejected. In case some mistake has been done in awarding compensation, it cannot be followed on the ground of parity an illegality cannot be perpetuated. Such award/judgment would be wholly irrelevant."

¶806

Further reliance is placed on the following judgments while opposing the claim of parity:

¶807

Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Lakhamsi Ghelabhai; AIR 1960 Bom 78

¶808

Karan Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India ; (1997) 8 SCC 186

¶809

Union of India Vs. Ram Phool & Anr.; (2003) 10 SCC 167

¶810

Ranvir Singh and Anr. Vs. Union of India; (2005) 12 SCC 59

¶811

Vikrambhai Bhagabhai Patel Vs. Dy. Gen. Manager, ONGC; 2021 (20) SCC 574

¶812

Ramrao Shankar Tapase Vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and Others ; (2022) 7 SCC 563

¶813

State of M.P. Vs. Radheshyam and Ors.; 2023 (17) SCC 528

¶814

We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned

¶815

advocates for the respective parties.

¶816

In view of the above, the points that arise for consideration are:

¶817

A. Whether the claimants are entitled to the enhanced amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 60/- per sq. ft. as granted in parity Judgment ?

¶818

B. Whether the claimants prove that they are entitled for enhancement of compensation for trees, well and structures?

¶819

¶820

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶821

For the sake of convenience, the details as to the date of Section 4 notification, date of award, rate awarded by the SLAO, date of Reference Court judgment, rate awarded by the Reference Court, interest awarded by the Reference Court, survey numbers of acquired lands, compensation awarded for acquired trees/structures in respect of the acquired lands falling under the judgment and order of this court dated 16.09.2019 and the present appeals, are given in tabular format as under:

¶822

IN PARITY JUDGMENT:

¶823

Group	Date of Section 4 Notification	Date of Award by SLAO	Rate of Compensation awarded by SLAO (Per Hectare)	Date of Reference Court Judgment	Rate of Compensati on awarded by Reference Court (Per Square Foot)	Interest granted U/Sec. 28 of L.A. Act	Survey Nos.	Rate of Compensation awarded by this Court	The appeals preferred by the acquiring body and State were partly allowed by modifying the award to
I	11.02.2007	05.02.2008	Rs. 3,74,000/-	30.12.2014	Rs. 100/-	From the date of publication of Section 4 notification.	257, 274, 275, 202	Rs. 75/- per sq. ft. for non- agricultural	the extent of granting interest U/Sec. 28 of
II	07.07.2006	06.05.2008	Rs. 7,40,000/- for NA purpose use lands and Rs. 3,80,000/- for other lands	31.12.2014	Rs. 115/- And Rs. 100/-	From the date of publication of Section 4 notification.	241, 242, 245, 246	use permission lands and Rs. 60/- per sq. ft. for lands other than NA use permission.	the L.A. Act from the date of award instead of, from the date of publication of Section 4 notification.
III	11.02.2007	05.02.2008	Rs. 8,00,000/-	20.01.2011	Rs. 21/-	From the date of publication of Section 4 notification.	257, 274, 275, 202

¶824

¶825

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶826

IN PRESENT FIRST APPEALS:

¶827

Group	Date of Section 4 Notification	Date of Award	Rate awarded by SLAO (Per Hectare)	Date of Reference Court Judgment	Rate awarded by Reference Court (Per Hectare)	Interest granted U/Sec. 28 of L.A. Act	Survey Nos.	Compensation in respect of acquired trees
I	03.10.2004	16.10.2006	Rs.3,28,000/-	21.03.2012	Rs.16,39,000/-	From the date of publication of Section 4 notification.	252,253,255, 256,260	The claimants are awarded compensation at the rate of 50 % more than the compensation awarded by the SLAO for fruit bearing trees, trees and forest trees standing in the acquired land.
II	07.07.2006	11.10.2007	Rs.3,74,000/-	09.02.2012	Rs.13,00,000/-	From the date of publication of Section 4 notification.	240	For want of evidence, no enhancement/additional amount is awarded to the claimants in respect of acquired trees.
III	25.02.2006	31.01.2007	Rs.3,74,000/-	11.10.2010	Rs.13,00,000/-	From the date of publication of Section 4 notification.	246,247,249, 250,251	For want of evidence, no enhancement/additional amount is awarded to the claimants in respect of acquired trees.
IV	07.07.2006	12.03.2008	Rs.3,74,000/-	02.02.2011	Rs.13,00,000/-	From the date of publication of Section 4 notification.	223	For want of evidence, no enhancement/additional amount is awarded to the claimants in respect of acquired trees.
V	03.12.2005	28.05.2008	Rs.3,60,000/-	16.12.2011	Rs.13,00,000/-	From the date of publication of Section 4 notification.	237,238,250, 269,270,271	For want of evidence, no enhancement/additional amount is awarded to the claimants in respect of acquired trees.

¶828

WITNESSES EXAMINED IN PARITY JUDGMENT:

¶829

NAMES OF WITNESSES	EXHIBIT	EXHIBIT	EXHIBIT
Kiran Hiware - Claimant	14	--	--
Anil Bodke - Claimant	--	16	--
Bharatkumar Reddy – Claimant	--	--	20
Anil Phulari - Valuer	64	408	24
N. G. Patil - Tree Valuer	69	--	--
Dr. Pradeep Marvale – SLAO	72	414	--
Vijay Kumar Patil - Ex. Engineer,	75	416	--
Laxman Paikrao - TILR	80	421	--
Bharatsing Thakur - Tax Inspector	82	424	--

¶830

¶831

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶832

WITNESSES EXAMINED IN PRESENT FIRST APPEALS :

¶833

Particulars	Group I 21.03.2012	Group II 09.02.2012	Group III 11.10.2010	Group IV 02.02.2011	Group V 16.12.2011
Name of Witnesses	Exhibit No.	Exhibit No.	Exhibit No.	Exhibit No.	Exhibit No.
Claimant	Nagorao Digambar Kandharkar Exhibit 20	Suryakant Ramlu Ayya Exhibit 12	Habib Ajhar s/o Habib Isa Chaus Exhibit 11	Manmath Narayan Shetkar Exhibit 19	Samb Trimbakappa Mahajan Exhibit 12
Nandkumar Ganpatrao Patil	---	---	Exhibit 30	Exhibit 65	---
(Agricultural/ Horticulture Valuer)
Anil Vaijanath Phulari Structural Valuer	---	---	---	Exhibit 56	---
Shivraj Baburao Irphale (To establish market value of acquired land)	Exhibit 24	---	---	---	---
Keshav Ramrao Pawar (Agricultural/ Horticulture Valuer) (Private Valuer)	Exhibit 21	---	---	---	---
Part plan of sanctioned development plan of Ahmedpur (extended area) SS.N. 237 to 271	Exhibit 42	Exhibit 44	---	---	Exhibit 87
Village Map	---	Exhibit 32	---	---	Exhibit 89

¶834

SALE DEEDS CONSIDERED IN PARITY JUDGMENT:

¶835

Dates of Sale Deeds	Sy. No.	Area	Consideration	Rate per sq.	EXHIBIT	EXHIBIT	EXHIBIT
				foot Approx.	Group I	Group II	Group
02.08.2000	86	181.25 S.M.	3,78,000	193/-	48	32
10.02.2004	88/1/1	63 R.	54,32,000	80/-	19		18
24.05.2004	86/1	150 S.M.	4,00,000	247/-	49	33
29.06.2005	2/5	440 S.F.	1,00,000	227/-	21	34

¶836

¶837

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶838

06.07.2005	2/2/3	300 S.M.	3,32,000	129/-	51	36
22.08.2005	2/2/3	90 S.M.	1,25,000	150/-	50	37
01.12.2005	2/7	800 S.F.	1,20,000	150/-	20	35
15.04.2004	88/1 88/2	48 R.	47,60,000	92/-			19

¶839

SALE DEEDS RELIED ON IN PRESENT FIRST APPEALS:

¶840

Dates of Sale	Sy. No.	Area	EXHIBIT	EXHIBIT	EXHIBIT	EXHIBIT	EXHIBIT
Deeds			Group I	Group II	Group III	Group IV	Group V
10.02.2004	88/1 Hissa No. 1/1	63 R	13	33	17	15	72
29.03.2004	88/1 (88/1/2)	22 R		34			73
15.04.2004	88/1 (88/1/2)	48 R	14	35	16	14	74
23.07.2004	88/1 Hissa No. 2	10 R		36			75

¶841

Here, it will be apposite to refer to some of the judgments

¶842

wherein, the Court has granted compensation on the basis of parity.

¶843

In the case of Bhim Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. , reported in AIR 2003 SC 4382 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, “when compensation has already been fixed by the High Court in earlier proceedings and when in one such proceedings this Court has already approved the rate fixed, then, in our view the best method would be to look at the earlier judgment and awards. Therefore, the High Court cannot be faulted for having fixed compensation on the basis of earlier judgments.”

¶844

¶845

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶846

In the case of Bayaji Tatya Kalunge Vs. State of Maharashtra , reported in, 2007 (2) ALL MR 316 , this Court has held that when lands are acquired for the same purpose and are situated in the same village under same notification then the appellants are similarly situated to the other claimants who have been granted compensation at enhanced rates. Therefore, the appellants are also entitled for the same compensation.

¶847

In the case of Salaha Begum & Ors. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in, 2013 (11) SCC 426 , the lands were acquired by way of two different notifications but, for the same purpose. The sale deeds relied in both the cases were also the same. Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that, “Once the High Courts accepted the sale deeds dated 07.01.1993 as the touchstone for determination of the compensation payable for identically situated land, there could be no justification for awarding less compensation to the appellants.”

¶848

In the case of Ali Mohammad Beigh & Ors. Vs. State of J & K, reported in , AIR 2017 SC 1518 , it was observed that when acquired lands are more or less situated nearby, are identical and similar and the land is acquired for the same purpose, even if the acquired lands are situated in three different villages, it would be unfair to discriminate between the land owners and to pay less compensation than what is paid to the other similarly situated land owners was laid down.

¶849

¶850

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶851

In the case of Ningappa Thotappa Angadi (Dead) through LRs Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors., reported in (2020) 19 SCC 599 ,

¶852

the Supreme Court reaffirmed the view in that when appellants are also similarly placed claimants, they are entitled to seek parity and claim the same amount of fair and compensation as has been awarded to the other land owners.

¶853

In the case of Krishna Kumar Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. , reported in AIR 2025 SC 2468 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that irrespective of whether the sale deeds relied upon by the claimants pertain to the same village as the acquired lands, the same set of exemplars must be applied uniformly across both villages and that, artificial boundaries created for administrative convenience cannot be allowed to obstruct the application of the fundamental principles of fairness.

¶854

As such, the exposition of law enunciated in the aforesaid authorities is squarely applicable in the present situation, wherein the legal position is well settled that where lands situated in the same village or nearby areas are acquired under same, prior, or contemporaneous notifications for the same purpose, the landholders who are similarly placed are entitled to the same rate of compensation.

¶855

¶856

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶857

The judgments relied upon by the respondents deal with aspects such as credibility of evidence, auction sale unreliability, small-plot comparability for large land compensation, public interest in fair compensation, and limits on parity claims and hence, these decisions have no application to the facts of the present case. Here, the claimants only seek parity with an earlier judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court, relating to lands from the same village acquired for the same project.

¶858

In these circumstances, uniform valuation cannot be denied merely on the ground of minor variations in sale exemplars as, such denial would result in unjust discrimination. The precedents cited by the respondents, therefore, do not assist their case and cannot be used to defeat the claim of the petitioners.

¶859

With regard to the contention of learned advocate for respondents that the sale deeds relied upon by the claimants cannot be considered as those are of post section 4 notification date and that the sale transactions were entered into on the basis of prior knowledge of the acquisition proceedings which has resulted in higher price in sale deeds. After careful reading of section 4, it is clear that the last date for Section 4 publication is the date of giving public notice, while passing the award. Hence, on considering the provision and relevant dates, it is clear that the date of giving public notice/village publication i.e.

¶860

¶861

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶862

03.10.2004 is the last date and hence, the date of publication of section 4 notification in the present case. Also, on careful perusal of the material brought on record, it is found that the sale instances relied by the claimants are a result of tender process and not auction proceedings. The sale deeds are dated 10.02.2004 and 15.04.2004 i.e. before the date of publication of section 4 notification and hence, can be relied upon.

¶863

Thus, the judgments relied on by the advocates for the acquiring body in regard that, Sale Deeds executed post section 4 notification cannot be relied upon and that the element of competition in auction sales makes them unsafe guides for determining the market value are not applicable to the facts of the present case as, the sale deeds relied on in the present case pertain to the lands which were sold by way of tender process and not by auction process.

¶864

In the parity judgment, the Court has given the reasons for nonacceptance of sale deeds from survey nos. 86 & 88 and reasons for placing reliance for fixing the market price on the basis of sale deeds from survey no. 2 and has also discussed the parity grounds in paragraph nos.126 to 139 which are reproduced below:

¶865

"126. Sale deeds produced and relied on by the claimants are in respect of lands survey No. 2, 86 and 88. Those are of plots in land within

¶866

¶867

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶868

municipal limits having non agriculture use permission. The lands under most of the sale deeds were allowed NA use since 1972 to 1986. Lands under sale deeds were better placed and were better developed. Said lands are forming hub of the city and are developed lands.

¶869

Lands Survey No. 86 and 88 and their sub divisions are very close to Ahmedpur-Latur road and are either very close to or are almost in gaothan. Land survey No. 2 is situated on northern side of Ahmedpur-Amajogai road. Map Exhibit-33 depicts that land survey No. 2 is abutting Ahmedpur gaothan and is very close to Latur - Nanded highway. Kalegaon road passes through land survey No. 2. Survey No. 2 is in closer proximity to acquired lands as compared to lands Survey No. 86 and 88.

¶870

In such a case, proper and safer way, as has been considered by the reference courts taking into account certain Supreme Court judgments, appears to be to arrive at market value of the acquired lands taking cue from the sale deeds of lands in closer proximity to the acquired lands.

¶871

From the distance point of view, land Survey No. 202 is closer to land Survey No.2. In the circumstances, sale deeds from survey No. 2 may serve as indicator and guide. But land survey No. 2 is not abutting or adjacent to any of acquired lands. Acquired land survey No. 202 which is comparatively closer to Survey No. 2 appears to be separated by quite some distance. Sale deeds from land Survey No. 2 are in respect of developed area.

¶872

Though latitude will have to be given to that some portions from the acquired lands were being used for non-agriculture purposes from quite a few years, yet those were not fully developed lands at the time of acquisition. No other acquired lands had NA permission nor is there any evidence about said lands being used for NA purpose. Despite NA permissions being granted to small portions from acquired lands from 1990 onwards up to 1998, no further non-

¶873

¶874

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶875

agricultural developments have come up in the adjoining areas of acquired lands. Not a single sale instance from the acquired lands is produced, either of past or for the period post 1998. This gives indication of that no developments worth the name were taking place and the rate of developments was extremely slow and tardy. Coupled with this there is no material produced in respect of developments over acquired lands or even over any adjoining lands.

¶876

There is generally paucity of developmental facilities for areas at distance from mainland city. There is no evidence in respect of availability of developmental facilities for acquired lands which are at quite some distance from main town.

¶877

This gives indication of that the rates at which lands plots were sold from survey No. 2 would not be fetched by acquired lands. Prices of acquired lands, though may be having NA potentiality, would be on downward side from those of lands in Survey No. 2. Rates of acquired lands would be not that of developed lands. Additionally, expenses over developments and betterment of the lands would have to be taken into account, as considered by the reference court. The rates would be considerably less than the developed lands in survey No. 2, with deductions for development etc.

¶878

The special land acquisition officer had referred to in the evidence that in respect of, inter alia, non-agricultural lands, if sale transactions are in acres, land rates are determined on acreage and if transactions are on square foot basis, rate is determined are per square foot. Lands of claimants have non-agricultural potentiality, ready reckoner rates of acquired lands are contended to be 115/- 175/- and 350/- per square meter.

¶879

It appears that reference to decision of the Supreme Court in the case of “Special Land Acquisition Officer BTDA, Bagalkot V/s Md.

¶880

¶881

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶882

Hanif” reported in 2002 (4) SBR 273, would be pertinent. In said case compensation given on per square foot basis has been endorsed by the Supreme Court as the lands were within the municipal limits, while special land acquisition officer had given rate on per Acre basis. In the present case, there is no serious dispute on that lands under acquisition are also from municipal limits. There appears to be substance in the contention of the claimants that evidence suggests, rates would have to be determined on per square foot basis as the lands borne NA potentiality. Thus, aforesaid judgment can be taken into account. Following said decision, it would not be improper to consider determination of market value of lands on square foot basis.

¶883

........... ........... ...........

¶884

Going by the decision in the matter “Bayaji Tatya Kalunge V/s State of Maharashtra” reported in 2007 (2) ALL MR 316, it may not be improper as considered by reference court that if the lands are situated in same village, acquired for same project under same notification, in that case claimants are entitled to compensation at the same rate on the ground of parity. Since lands acquired are for the same project and are being acquired under notifications issued in close proximity, the reference court had considered that if the lands are acquired for same project under same notification, same rate can be awarded.

¶885

Taking into consideration the parity judgment and the comparative charts, we find the following similarities in appeals under consideration :

¶886

¶887

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶888

1. Firstly, the lands are acquired for the purpose of the same project i.e., construction of Kalegaon Storage Tank.

¶889

Secondly, the Section 4 notifications are issued contemporaneously in the years 2004, 2005, 2006 in the present group of first appeals and in the year 2007 in the case of the judgment & order relied on.

¶890

Thirdly, the lands under acquisition in the present group of first appeals and those under acquisition in the case of the judgment relied on, are situated adjacent to each other, in the same vicinity and extremely in close proximity.

¶891

Fourthly, the evidence in the form of Sale Deeds relied upon by the claimants in the present group of first appeals also forms part of the evidence considered by this Court in the parity judgment.

¶892

Fifthly, the claimants have produced the map pointing out that the acquired lands are within the municipal limits of Ahmedpur City. The maps depict locations of lands including the lands under acquisition. The lands of the present claimants are situated in Survey Nos.237, 238, 250, 269, 270, 271, 240, 246, 247, 249, 250, 251, 223, 252, 253, 255, 256, 260 and the acquired lands in the parity judgment are situated in Survey Nos. 275, 202, 274, 241, 242, 245, 246, 256 and 257. It appears that

¶893

¶894

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶895

the lands are in proximity with each other and some survey numbers are also common. In the parity judgment it is mentioned that Survey Nos. 237 to 271 are in the Municipal Council Limits. This letter is not disputed by the State and the acquiring body. Claimants in the present group of first appeals have also produced a letter from the Municipal Council office stating that the Survey Nos. 237 to 271 fall within the Municipal Council Limits. Therefore, it is clear that the acquired lands of the present claimants in these groups of First Appeals are situated adjacent to and in the same Gat numbers as the acquired lands in parity judgment.

¶896

Applying the aforesaid conclusions, the claimants in the present group of appeals being similarly placed as the claimants in the parity judgment, they are entitled for parity in compensation as has been awarded in the parity Judgment.

¶897

In the parity judgment while fixing the rate, this Court has observed that :-

¶898

"135. The price range of rates of sale deeds of Survey No. 2, for the year 2005 appears to be between 129/-, 150/-, 150/ and 227/- per square foot. Average rate for sale deeds of lands in Survey No. 2 would be ` 164/- per square foot. Survey No. 2 is, as referred to above, a developed area.

¶899

¶900

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶901

In the circumstances, rates determined by the reference court in lands references in group I and II appear to be far steeper in comparison to the rates of compensation granted to land Survey No. 202 in group III, which is closer in proximity to land Survey No.2.

¶902

As referred to above, no sale instances could be produced from the acquired lands or those from immediately surrounding. Distance of lands from highway and from the developments and goanthan gives indication of that developments, if any, were extremely tardy. No sales of lands from near areas either were taking place or were not being sold at rate demanded by claimants. This is indeed a pointer to that lands would not have fetched at all rates expected by claimants and would be considerably less than the lands in Survey No. 2. Coupled with the same, it would involve expenses over betterment and developments.

¶903

As such, we consider that reasonably, rate would have been less than half the average rate of developed area of Survey No. 2 and taking into account that expenses would have to be incurred for development and betterment of area, rates would be hovering around 60/per square foot for non-agriculture use lands and about 50/- per square foot for other lands around 2005. With 10% increase per year, in 2007 the rate would have been approximately around 75/- per square foot for NA use lands and 60/- per square foot for other lands."

¶904

Applying the same rate by adopting the same method, the rate is fixed as follows :-

¶905

(i) In Group I, the date of Section 4 notification is 03.10.2004. Applying 10% deduction, the rate of compensation for Group I is fixed at Rs.45/- per sq. ft.

¶906

¶907

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶908

(ii) In Group V, the date of Section 4 notification is 03.12.2005. The rate of compensation for Group V is fixed at Rs.50/- per sq. ft.

¶909

(iii) In Groups II, III and IV, the dates of Section 4 notification are 07.07.2006, 25.02.2006 and 07.07.2006, respectively. Applying 10% increase yearly, the rate of compensation for Groups II, III, IV is fixed at Rs.55/- per sq. ft.

¶910

In the parity judgment, the award is modified to the extent of granting interest from the date of award on the basis of full bench judgment in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari reported in 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457 . Those paragraphs from the parity judgment are reproduced below:

¶911

"142. The courts have given along with rate of market value, benefit of 12% p.a. additional component under section 23 (1-A) and 30% solatium under section 23 (2) of the LA Act and interest from the date of notification under section 4, for the first year at the rate of 9% p.a. and for subsequent years at the rate of 15% p.a. till the date of payment to the claimants.

¶912

While the reference courts purport to grant interest on market value, additional component and solatium from the dates of notification under section 4 of the Act to the date of actual payment, this particular direction / order has been rendered unsustainable in view of declaration of law over this aspect by full bench of this court in the

¶913

100

¶914

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶915

decision on reference reported in 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457: MANU/MH/0557/2016, in the case of “State of Maharashtra V/s Kailas Shiva Rangari”.

¶916

In said judgment it has been clearly considered that interest under section 34 of the Act would start running from the date of possession only if possession is taken in exercise of powers under section 17 of said Act. It has been held that if possession of land under acquisition is taken under section 16 of the Act, then interest would be payable under section 34 from the date of passing of award under section 11 of the Act.

¶917

In the present case, neither the parties have pleaded that possession been taken from the claimants was in exercise of powers under section 17 of the Act, nor it is their case that procedure thereunder had been followed before taking over the possession. So far as interest is concerned, the area would be governed by the full bench decision (supra).

¶918

In the circumstances, direction / order of the reference courts to pay interest from the date of notification under section 4 of the Act appears to be incompatible with decision of full bench (supra) and that will have to be altered and brought in tune with said decision."

¶919

In these appeals also, in Group Nos. I, II, III, IV, V, the interest is granted from the date of Section 4 Notification. In Group Nos. II and V, interest under Section 34 is awarded from the date of possession till the payment of compensation granted by the SLAO. In all these

¶920

101

¶921

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶922

appeals, statutory interest of 9% be granted for the first year from the date of passing of award and 15% till date of realisation of the payment. Similarly, the claimants will not be entitled to interest under section 34 as the claimants had not brought any evidence showing that the possession was taken by following procedure laid down under section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 as observed in paragraph nos.144 and 145 (supra). The point No. A is answered accordingly.

¶923

As to Point No. B:-

¶924

The land acquisition references challenged in the parity judgment were not having any fruit bearing trees. Hence, the point for consideration was not framed in that regard. However, in the present appeals, the compensation is granted to the fruit bearing trees, hence the additional point is framed.

¶925

In group No. I in First Appeal No.1098/2018 arising out of L.A.R. No.96/2011 and X-Objection No.104/2023 in First Appeal No. 809/2014 arising out of L.A.R. No.95/2011, valuer Keshav Ramrao Pawar was examined by claimant. While deciding the price of the trees, it was necessary for the valuer to mention height, condition, width and spread of trees. The valuation made should have been supported by the

¶926

102

¶927

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶928

market rates of fruits by Agriculture and Horticulture Department of Government of Maharashtra or Agricultural Produce Market Committee. But such an exercise is not carried out by the expert valuer. The valuer admitted that he did valuation on 24.10.2007 but prepared the report much later i.e. on 01.12.2007. Valuer has not mentioned in his report as to how much land is occupied by the trees so that it could have been deducted while giving the compensation for land.

¶929

He has not prepared any Panchanama while preparing the valuation report. After discussing the valuer’s evidence, the Reference Court found that the price awarded by valuer is excessive and price awarded by the SLAO is meagre. After observing this, the Reference Court without there being any evidence has abruptly come to the conclusion that it will be appropriate to enhance the trees compensation by 50% of the price awarded by the SLAO. There is no reason given by the Reference Court to enhance the compensation awarded by the SLAO. The compensation is enhanced only on guess work without there being any cogent evidence. Hence, we are of the opinion that there cannot be any enhancement due to lack of evidence.

¶930

In group Nos. II and V, the reference Court has refused to enhance the compensation of trees, well and structures by holding that while passing the award, the SLAO has considered the valuation by the

¶931

103

¶932

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶933

District Superintendent Agricultural Officer and valuation done by the Executive Engineer, Latur. Whereas, in reference the claimant has not placed any valuation done by expert or placed any evidence regarding valuation of trees, well and structures, stone bund . Therefore, for want of evidence, the Reference Court has rightly refused to enhance the compensation granted by SLAO. No interference is called in the said observation made by the Reference Court.

¶934

In group III and IV, in First Appeal No.4216/2017 by claimant in L.A.R. No.889/2008, Valuer Nandkumar Ganpatrao Patil was examined but Reference Court has rightly refused to enhance the compensation of trees as there was long gap in preparation of valuation report and actual valuation carried on. Valuation was done on 07.07.2006 whereas report was prepared on 11.07.2010 that is almost after gap of 4 years. Valuer has not mentioned in his report what income the claimant was getting from the fruit bearing trees he had planted and from the trees which grew in his land naturally i.e. from the forest trees. Hence, for lack of evidence the Reference Court has rightly refused to enhance the compensation for trees by SLAO and no interference is called for in the said observations. The point No. B is answered accordingly.

¶935

104

¶936

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶937

49. The statutory interest is maintained as it is, as is granted in the

¶938

parity judgment in paragraph nos.154 and 155, which are reproduced

¶939

below:-

¶940

"154. In view of forgoing discussion and reasons, it would be appropriate to consider that the acquired lands would have fetched market value of about Rs.75/- per square foot for NA use permitted lands and Rs.60/- per square foot for the other lands. The decision of the reference courts in respect of benefits of provisions of the Act, viz; section 23 (1-A), 23 (2) as referred to above, is not being disturbed. The date of notification in village being the last, as reckoned by reference court would be considered for calculations. 155. The direction under references or awards to pay interest from the date of notification under section 4 of the LA Act, stands altered and modified. Interest under provisions of the LA Act would be required to be paid from the date of passing of the award under section 11 of the LA Act, in tune with decision of full bench reported in 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457: MANU/MH/0557/2016. The authorities would be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. for one year from the date of award under section 11 on the components of compensation referred to under section 23, including 23 (1-A) and 23 (2) of the Act and @ 15% p.a. subsequent to one year from the date of award under section 11 till actual payment."

¶941

In the result, we pass the following order :-

¶942

O R D E R

¶943

(i) Appeals by claimants are partly allowed.

¶944

(ii) X-Objections by the claimants are partly allowed.

¶945

(iii) Appeals by acquiring body are partly allowed.

¶946

105

¶947

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶948

(iv) Judgments and Awards of the Reference Court challenged in all the groups stand altered and modified as under :-

¶949

(a) Compensation be paid to claimants for their lands @ Rs.45/- per sq. ft. in Group I, Rs.50/- per sq. ft. in Group V and Rs.55/- per sq. ft. in Group II, III and IV.

¶950

(b) Claimants be paid, in addition to aforesaid, an amount calculated at the rate of 12% p.a. for the period commencing from date of section 4 notification in respect of their acquired lands to the date of award by Collector as provided under section 23(1-A) of the LA Act.

¶951

¶952

(d) Interest be paid on the compensation in accordance with full bench judgment viz; 2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457: MANU/MH/0557/2016, in the case of `State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari” from the date of award @ 9% p.a. for first year and @ 15% p.a. for subsequent years till payment of amount.

¶953

(e) It is made clear that the claimants shall not be entitled for the amount of interest for the period of delay caused in filing the first appeals and cross objections , which are condoned by this Court, on the said condition.

¶954

(f) The award amount was deposited by the acquiring body either in the High Court or in the Trial Court and the claimants were permitted to withdraw the said amount. The claimants will be entitled to withdraw the remaining amount along with accrued interest.

¶955

(g) Acquiring Body shall deposit the amount of compensation within six (6) months from the date of uploading of this order.

¶956

106

¶957

1098.2018FA Group - corrected.odt

¶958

(h) Bank Guarantee, if any, furnished by the Claimants stands revoked.

¶959

(i) The claimants are required to pay the deficit court fees, if any, on the enhanced amount of compensation. If the deficit court fee is not paid by the claimants/X-objectors, then the same shall be recovered/deducted from the enhanced compensation amount.

¶960

(vii) All Appeals and X-Objections are disposed of accordingly.

¶961

(viii) Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶962

[VAISHALI PATIL – JADHAV, J.]

¶963

[NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]

¶964

sga/

¶965

107

Ganesh Manmath Wadkar v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Manmath Wadkar v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Muslehuddin Mohammed Siddiqui Died through Lrs Naghma E Zamzam Siddiqui and Others vs the Union of India through Its Secretary and Others

Rajabhau Sitaram Mali vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Javedkha Miyakhan Patel Died Thr Lrs and Another vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Suryakant Ramlu Ayya vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Suryakant Ramlu Ayya vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Chandrashekar Ramlu Ayya vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.