Partly allowed

Prabhawati Laxman Wadje v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Mar 2026FA/1659/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Group of first appeals by landowners and acquiring body over compensation for lands acquired for Kalegaon Storage Tank at Ahmedpur, Latur. Applying parity with a coordinate Bench judgment covering adjacent lands acquired for the same project, the court fixed rates of Rs.45-55 per sq.ft., granted solatium and statutory components, and refused tree-value enhancement for want of evidence.

What did the court decide?

Compensation fixed at Rs.45/- (Gr.I), Rs.50/- (Gr.V) and Rs.55/- (Gr.II-IV) per sq.ft., plus 12% p.a. u/S.23(1-A), solatium u/S.23(2), and interest @9% first year and @15% thereafter from date of awar

Prabhawati Laxman Wadje vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

1098.2018FA Group

¶2

2026:BHC-AUG:11376-DB

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1098 of 2018

¶5

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

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

Shobhabai W/o Nagorao Kandharkar, Age 52 Yrs. Occu : Agriculture R/o : Ahmedpur, Taluka : Ahmedpur, District : Latur … APPELLANTS

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

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

¶12

The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur.

¶13

… RESPONDENTS

¶14

_______________________________________________________________ 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.

¶15

WITH

¶16

FIRST APPEAL 802 OF 2014

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

2.	The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur. VERSUS	1098.2018FA Group … APPELLANTS
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 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 803 OF 2014	… RESPONDENTS
1.	The State of Maharashtra, Through- The Collector, Latur.
2.	The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur. VERSUS	… APPELLANTS
	Bhojaram s/o. Devichand Bhagat, Age: Major years, Occu. Agril., R/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 804 OF 2014	… RESPONDENT
1.	The State of Maharashtra, Through- The Collector, Latur.	2

¶20

1098.2018FA Group

¶21

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 VERSUS 1. Zulfikar s/o. Salauddin Kazi, Age- Major years, Occu. Agril., 2. Jamiroddin s/o. Mainoddin Kazi, Age- Major years, Occu. Agril., … RESPONDENTS WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 806 OF 2014 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through- The Collector, Latur. 2. The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur. … APPELLANTS VERSUS 1. Sumanbai w/o. Waman Kandarkar, Age- 50 years, Occu. Agril.,

¶22

¶23

1098.2018FA Group

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

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.,

¶29

All R/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. … RESPONDENTS WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 807 OF 2014

¶30

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

¶31

The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur. … APPELLANTS

¶32

VERSUS Mainoddin Amiroddin Khatik Died through LRs.

¶33

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

¶34

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

¶35

Naser S/o Mainoddin Kureshi, Age 45 years, Occu. Business, 4

¶36

1098.2018FA Group

¶37

Kalim S/o. Mainoddin Kureshi, Age 50 years, Occu. Business 1 to 4 R/o Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. 5. Akhtar W/o Abdul Raheman, Age 52 years, Occu. H.H. R/o Maysur Colony, Latur. 6. Latila /o Ismail Kureshi, Age 42 years, Occu. H.H., R/o Kallamb Tq. Kallamb, Dist. Latur. … RESPONDENTS WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 808 OF 2014 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.

¶38

¶39

1098.2018FA Group

¶40

The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur. … APPELLANTS

¶41

VERSUS

¶42

Habib s/o. Isa S/o. Habib Mohammad Chaus, Age- 65 years, Occu. Agril.,

¶43

Habib s/o. Khijar S/o. Habib Mohammad Chaus, Age-20 years, Occ. Agril.,

¶44

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

¶45

… RESPONDENTS

¶46

Mr. A.B. Girase, GP for appellant/State. Mr. S.G. Sangle, Advocate for appellant no.2. Mr. A.V. Sakolkar h/f Mr. V.G. Sakolkar, Advocate for respondents.

¶47

WITH X-OBJECTION NO. 101 OF 2023 IN FA/807/2014 Mainoddin Amiroddin Khatik Died through LRs.

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

VERSUS

¶52

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

¶53

¶54

1098.2018FA Group

¶55

2.	The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur.
	WITH X-OBJECTION NO. 102 OF 2023 IN FA/806/2014	… RESPONDENTS
1.	Sumanbai w/o. Waman Kandarkar, Age- 60 years, Occu. Agril.,
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. VERSUS	… APPLICANTS
1.	The State of Maharashtra, Through- The Collector, Latur.
2.	The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur. WITH X-OBJECTION NO. 103 OF 2023 IN FA/805/2014	… RESPONDENTS
1.	Zulfikar S/o Salauddin Kazi,
	Age Major Yrs. Occu : Agriculture,	7

¶56

1098.2018FA Group

¶57

2.	Jamiroddin S/o Mainoddin Kazi,
	Age Major Yrs. Occu : Agriculture, R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, District : 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. 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. WITH X-OBJECTION NO. 105 OF 2023 IN FA/803/2023	… RESPONDENTS
1.	Bhojaram S/o Devichand Bhagat, Age Major Yrs. Occu : Agriculture,	8

¶58

1098.2018FA Group

¶59

R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, District: Latur.

¶60

… APPLICANT

¶61

VERSUS

¶62

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur.

¶63

The Executive Engineer Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur.

¶64

… RESPONDENTS

¶65

WITH

¶66

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

¶67

Balaram S/o Chagan Bhagat, Died through LRs.

¶68

Kamalbai W/o Balaram Bhagat, Age Major Yrs. Occu : Agriculture, R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, District: Latur

¶69

… APPLICANT

¶70

VERSUS

¶71

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur.

¶72

The Executive Engineer Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur. … RESPONDENTS

¶73

WITH X-OBJECTION NO. 61 OF 2024 IN FA/804/2014

¶74

Harishchandra S/o Chagan Bhagat, Died through LR

¶75

Subhash S/o Harishchandra Bhagat Age 55 Yrs. Occu : Agriculture, R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur,

District : Latur.

… APPLICANT

1098.2018FA Group

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur.

¶82

The Executive Engineer Latur Minor Irrigation, Latur. … RESPONDENTS

¶83

_______________________________________________________________ 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.

¶84

_______________________________________________________________ WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2266 OF 2013

¶85

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

¶86

... APPELLANT

¶87

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 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2267 of 2013

¶88

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

... APPELLANT

1098.2018FA Group

VERSUS

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

¶94

¶95

	1098.2018FA Group
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

¶96

¶97

1098.2018FA Group

¶98

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur

¶99

	… RESPONDENTS WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2272 OF 2013
	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
	13

¶100

1098.2018FA Group

¶101

WITH

¶102

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2274 OF 2013

¶103

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

¶104

... APPELLANT

¶105

VERSUS

¶106

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.

¶107

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

¶108

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

¶109

… APPLICANT

¶110

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur

¶111

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

1098.2018FA Group

WITH

X-OBJECTION (ST.) NO. 41987 OF 2017

¶116

IN FA/2269/2013

¶117

Chandrashekar 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. 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

¶118

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

… APPLICANT

1098.2018FA Group

	VERSUS
1.	The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur
2.	The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.
	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	… RESPONDENTS … APPLICANT
1.	The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur
2.	The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.
	WITH X-OBJECTION NO. 168 OF 2024 IN FA/2266/2013	… RESPONDENTS
	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 16

¶123

1098.2018FA Group

¶124

WITH

¶125

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

¶126

	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	17

¶127

1098.2018FA Group

¶128

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

¶129

… RESPONDENTS

¶130

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

¶131

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

¶132

… APPLICANT

¶133

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur

¶134

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

¶135

… RESPONDENTS

¶136

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.

¶137

_______________________________________________________________ WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 603 OF 2011

¶138

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

¶139

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

¶140

¶141

1098.2018FA Group

¶142

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

¶143

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur

¶144

¶145

1098.2018FA Group

¶146

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

¶147

… APPELLANT

¶148

VERSUS

¶149

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

¶150

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

¶151

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur

¶152

… RESPONDENTS

¶153

WITH

¶154

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1306 OF 2019

¶155

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

¶156

VERSUS

¶157

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

¶158

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

¶159

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

¶160

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

¶161

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

¶162

¶163

1098.2018FA Group

¶164

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur

¶165

… RESPONDENTS

¶166

WITH

¶167

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1307 OF 2019

¶168

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

¶169

… APPELLANT

¶170

VERSUS

¶171

Hafizoddin s/o Variroddin Kazi Age-60 yrs, Occu. Agri R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur 2. The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur

¶172

… RESPONDENTS

¶173

WITH

¶174

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1308 OF 2019

¶175

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

¶176

... APPELLANT

¶177

VERSUS

¶178

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

¶179

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

¶180

¶181

1098.2018FA Group

¶182

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur

¶183

… RESPONDENTS

¶184

WITH

¶185

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1309 OF 2019

¶186

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

¶187

... APPELLANT

¶188

VERSUS

¶189

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

¶190

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

¶191

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

¶192

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

¶193

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

¶194

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

¶195

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

¶196

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

¶197

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

¶198

R/o. Ahemadpur Taluka Ahemadpur District Latur

¶199

¶200

1098.2018FA Group

¶201

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

¶202

… RESPONDENTS

¶203

WITH

¶204

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1310 OF 2019

¶205

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

¶206

... APPELLANT

¶207

VERSUS

¶208

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

¶209

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

¶210

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

¶211

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

¶212

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

¶213

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

¶214

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

¶215

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

¶216

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

¶217

¶218

1098.2018FA Group

¶219

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

¶220

R/o. Ahemadpur Taluka Ahemadpur District Latur

¶221

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

¶222

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

¶223

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

¶224

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

¶225

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

¶226

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

¶227

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.

¶228

All R/o Ahemadpur Tq. Ahemadpur Dist. Latur

¶229

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

¶230

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

¶231

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

¶232

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur

… RESPONDENTS

1098.2018FA Group

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1311 OF 2019

¶238

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

¶239

… APPELLANT

¶240

VERSUS

¶241

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

¶242

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

¶243

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

¶244

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

¶245

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

¶246

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

¶247

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

¶248

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur

… RESPONDENTS

1098.2018FA Group

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1340 OF 2019

¶254

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

¶255

… APPELLANT

¶256

VERSUS

¶257

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

¶258

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

¶259

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

¶260

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

¶261

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

¶262

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

¶263

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

¶264

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

¶265

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

¶266

¶267

1098.2018FA Group

¶268

	3. The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur
	4. Executive Engineer, Local Division, Latur WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1341 OF 2019	… RESPONDENTS
	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 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 1342 OF 2019	… RESPONDENTS
	The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad) VERSUS	… APPELLANT

¶269

¶270

1098.2018FA Group

¶271

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

¶272

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

¶273

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

¶274

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

¶275

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

¶276

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

¶277

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

¶278

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

¶279

1/H Latifa w/o Jabbar Sayyad Age 46 years. Occu. Agril. All R/o Kalegaon Taluka Ahemadpur Dist. Latur.

¶280

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur

¶281

… RESPONDENTS

¶282

WITH

¶283

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1343 OF 2019

¶284

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

… APPELLANT

VERSUS

1098.2018FA Group

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

¶290

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur … RESPONDENTS

¶291

_______________________________________________________________ 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

¶292

WITH

¶293

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

¶294

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

1098.2018FA Group

WITH

X-OBJECTION NO. 91 OF 2022

¶299

IN FA/1310/2019

¶300

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

¶301

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

¶302

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

¶303

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

¶304

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

¶305

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

¶306

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

¶307

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

¶308

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.

¶309

All R/o Ahemadpur Tq. Ahemadpur Dist. Latur

¶310

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

¶311

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

¶312

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

¶313

¶314

1098.2018FA Group

¶315

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

¶316

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

¶317

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

¶318

All R/o. Ahemadpur Taluka Ahemadpur District Latur

¶319

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

¶320

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

¶321

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

¶322

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

¶323

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

¶324

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

¶325

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

¶326

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

¶327

All R/o Ahemadpur Tq. Ahmadpur Dist. Latur

¶328

… APPLICANTS

¶329

VERSUS

¶330

The State of Maharashtra Through, The Dist. Collector Latur

¶331

¶332

1098.2018FA Group

¶333

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

¶334

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

¶335

… RESPONDENTS

¶336

WITH

¶337

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

¶338

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

¶339

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

¶340

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

¶341

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

¶342

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

¶343

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

¶344

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

¶345

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

¶346

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

¶347

All R/o Kalegaon Taluka Ahemadpur Dist. Latur.

… APPLICANTS

1098.2018FA Group

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra Through, The Dist. Collector Latur

¶353

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

¶354

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

¶355

… RESPONDENTS

¶356

WITH

¶357

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

¶358

Basavraj s/o Shivraj Irphale Age: 45 yrs, Occu: Agril. 2. Ravishankar s/o Shivraj Irphale Age: 40 yrs, Occu: Agril. R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. … APPLICANTS VERSUS 1. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development corporation Ltd, Aurangabad) 2. The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur … RESPONDENTS WITH X-OBJECTION NO. 109 OF 2023 IN FA/1309/2019

¶359

… APPLICANTS

¶360

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

¶361

¶362

1098.2018FA Group

¶363

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

¶364

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

¶365

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

¶366

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

¶367

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

¶368

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

¶369

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

¶370

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

¶371

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

¶372

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

¶373

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

¶374

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

¶375

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

¶376

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

¶377

¶378

		1098.2018FA Group
3/5	Kama Age 4	lbai w/o Dayanand Kokate 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

¶379

¶380

1098.2018FA Group

¶381

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	36

¶382

1098.2018FA Group

¶383

3.	Nagesh s/o Machindra Gaikwad Age 37 years, Occu. Agri
4.	Mangesh s/o Machindra Gaikwad Age 32 years, Occu. Agri
5.	Shripal s/o Machindra Gaikwad Age 64 years, Occu. Agri
6.	Pratibha D/o Machindra Gaikwad Age 34 years, Occu. Agri
7.	Archana D/o Machindra Gaikwad Age 35 years, Occu. Agri
	All R/o Ahemadpur Tq. Ahemadpur Dist Latur. VERSUS	… APPLICANTS
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 X-OBJECTION NO. 113 OF 2023 IN FA/1305/2019	… RESPONDENTS
1.	Mehaboob Ahmed s/o Ajimoddin Kazi Age-69 yrs, Occu. Agri
2.	Mujiboddin s/o Mehaboob Ahmed Kazi Age 36 yrs. Occu. Agri
	Both R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur	… APPLICANTS 37

¶384

1098.2018FA Group

¶385

VERSUS

¶386

The State of Maharashtra Through, The Dist. Collector Latur

¶387

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

¶388

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

¶389

… RESPONDENTS

¶390

WITH

¶391

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

¶392

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

¶393

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

¶394

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

¶395

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

¶396

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

¶397

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

¶398

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

¶399

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

¶400

¶401

1098.2018FA Group

¶402

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

¶403

VERSUS

¶404

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

¶405

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

¶406

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

¶407

WITH

¶408

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

¶409

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

¶410

VERSUS

¶411

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

¶412

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

¶413

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

¶414

¶415

1098.2018FA Group

¶416

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.

¶417

WITH

¶418

FIRST APPEAL NO. 4216 OF 2017

¶419

Manmath Narayan Shetkar (Desai), Through his LRs.

¶420

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

¶421

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

¶422

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

¶423

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

¶424

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

¶425

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

¶426

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

¶427

… APPELLANTS

¶428

VERSUS

¶429

State of Maharashtra Through : Collector, Latur.

¶430

The Special Land Acquisition Officer Purna Project, Latur.

¶431

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Latur.

… RESPONDENTS

1098.2018FA Group

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.

¶436

WITH

¶437

FIRST APPEAL NO. 4363 OF 2016

¶438

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

¶439

The State of Maharashtra through The Collector, Latur.

¶440

Special Land Acquisition, Purna Project, Latur. … APPELLANTS

¶441

VERSUS

¶442

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

¶443

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

¶444

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

¶445

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

¶446

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

… RESPONDENTS

1098.2018FA Group

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.

¶451

WITH

¶452

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2324 OF 2018

¶453

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

¶454

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

¶455

VERSUS

¶456

1. The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur

¶457

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

¶458

WITH

¶459

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1123 OF 2019

¶460

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

¶461

VERSUS

¶462

1. The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur

¶463

1. The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur. … RESPONDENTS 42

¶464

1098.2018FA Group

¶465

WITH

¶466

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1409 OF 2019

¶467

	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

¶468

¶469

1098.2018FA Group

¶470

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 44

¶471

1098.2018FA Group

¶472

WITH

¶473

	FIRST APPEAL NO. 1657 OF 2024 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

1098.2018FA Group

VERSUS

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, 46

¶478

1098.2018FA Group

¶479

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

¶480

... APPELLANTS

¶481

	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,

¶482

¶483

1098.2018FA Group

¶484

	R/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur.
2.	Savita W/o. Shivling Usturge Age: 53 Years, Occu: Household, R/o. Nanded, Tq. and Dist. Nanded.
3.	Sunita W/o. Lingeshwar Nandagavale Age: 50 Years, Occu: Household, R/o. Wadwal (Nagnath), Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur.
4.	Kalpana W/o. Trimbak Eshwarshette Age: 47 Years, Occu: Household, R/o. Deoni, Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur.
5.	Rahul S/o. Sambappa Warkad Age: 42 Years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur.
6.	Shakuntala W/o. Sangmeshwar Thonte Age: 40 Years, Occu: Household, R/o. Parali (Vaijnath), Parali (Vaijnath), Dist. Beed.
	... APPELLANTS VERSUS
1.	The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur
2.	The Executive Engineer, Latur Minor Irrigation Division, Latur.
	… RESPONDENTS WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 326 OF 2025
	Vaijnath S/o. Shivling Wadkar (Dead) Through its LRs

¶485

¶486

1098.2018FA Group

¶487

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

¶488

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

¶489

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

¶490

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

¶491

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

¶492

VERSUS

¶493

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur

¶494

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

¶495

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

1098.2018FA Group

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2289 OF 2013

¶500

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 2. Mahesh s/o Sangram Mahajan Age-17 yrs, Occu. Agri r/o as above 3. The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur

¶501

... APPELLANT

¶502

… RESPONDENTS WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2290 OF 2013

¶503

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Latur (Under the Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation Ltd, Aurangabad) ... APPELLANT VERSUS 1. Motiram s/o Shivling Wadkar Age-45 yrs, Occu. Agri r/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur Dist Latur 2. The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur … RESPONDENTS

¶504

¶505

1098.2018FA Group

¶506

WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2291 OF 2013

¶507

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

¶508

... APPELLANT

¶509

VERSUS

¶510

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

¶511

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur

¶512

… RESPONDENTS

¶513

WITH

¶514

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2292 OF 2013

¶515

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

¶516

... APPELLANT

¶517

VERSUS

¶518

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

¶519

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur

… RESPONDENTS

1098.2018FA Group

WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2293 OF 2013

¶524

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

¶525

... APPELLANT

¶526

VERSUS

¶527

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

¶528

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur … RESPONDENTS

¶529

WITH

¶530

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2294 OF 2013

¶531

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

¶532

... APPELLANT

¶533

VERSUS

¶534

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

¶535

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

¶536

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

¶537

¶538

1098.2018FA Group

¶539

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur … RESPONDENTS WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2295 OF 2013

¶540

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

¶541

¶542

2.	1098.2018FA Group 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 54

¶543

2.	1098.2018FA Group 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 55

¶544

1098.2018FA Group

¶545

2.	The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur … RESPONDENTS WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2301 OF 2013
	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 56

¶546

1098.2018FA Group

¶547

WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2303 OF 2013

¶548

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

¶549

... APPELLANT

¶550

VERSUS

¶551

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

¶552

The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur … RESPONDENTS

¶553

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

¶554

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

¶555

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

¶556

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

¶557

¶558

1098.2018FA Group

¶559

(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.

¶560

(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,

¶561

¶562

1098.2018FA Group

¶563

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.

¶564

(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,

¶565

¶566

1098.2018FA Group

¶567

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.

¶568

(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.

¶569

(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,

¶570

¶571

1098.2018FA Group

¶572

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

¶573

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.

¶574

¶575

1098.2018FA Group

¶576

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.

¶577

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

¶578

¶579

1098.2018FA Group

¶580

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.

¶581

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

¶582

¶583

1098.2018FA Group

¶584

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.

¶585

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.

¶586

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.

¶587

¶588

1098.2018FA Group

¶589

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.

¶590

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.

¶591

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

¶592

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

¶593

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

¶594

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:

¶595

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

¶596

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

¶597

¶598

1098.2018FA Group

¶599

To substantiate the contention that sale instances relating to

¶600

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:

¶601

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

¶602

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

¶603

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

¶604

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

¶605

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:

¶606

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

¶607

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

¶608

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

¶609

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

¶610

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

¶611

¶612

1098.2018FA Group

¶613

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

¶614

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

¶615

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

¶616

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

¶617

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

¶618

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

¶619

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

¶620

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

¶621

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

¶622

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

¶623

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

¶624

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

¶625

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

¶626

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

¶627

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

¶628

¶629

1098.2018FA Group

¶630

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

¶631

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.

¶632

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

¶633

¶634

1098.2018FA Group

¶635

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

¶636

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.

¶637

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

¶638

¶639

1098.2018FA Group

¶640

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.

¶641

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.

¶642

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.

¶643

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

¶644

¶645

1098.2018FA Group

¶646

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:

¶647

“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.”

¶648

Reliance is also placed on the following judgments which

¶649

reiterate the same principle :

¶650

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

¶651

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

¶652

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

¶653

¶654

1098.2018FA Group

¶655

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 ,

¶656

“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.”

¶657

Learned advocates have also relied on the following judgments in which the similar principle is reiterated:

¶658

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

¶659

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

¶660

¶661

1098.2018FA Group

¶662

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

¶663

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.”

¶664

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.

¶665

"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."

¶666

¶667

1098.2018FA Group

¶668

Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Dollar Company, Madras Vs. Collector of Madras reported in 1975 (2) SCC

¶669

730 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:

¶670

" 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."

¶671

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

¶672

¶673

1098.2018FA Group

¶674

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

¶675

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 :

¶676

"(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.

¶677

(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.

¶678

(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."

¶679

¶680

1098.2018FA Group

¶681

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 .

¶682

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:

¶683

"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.

¶684

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."

¶685

Reliance is also placed on Bangaru Narasingha Rao Naidu and

¶686

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

¶687

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

¶688

¶689

1098.2018FA Group

¶690

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

¶691

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

¶692

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 :

¶693

" 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

¶694

¶695

1098.2018FA Group

¶696

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."

¶697

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

¶698

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

¶699

"..... 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."

¶700

¶701

1098.2018FA Group

¶702

Same principle is reiterated in the following judgments :

¶703

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

¶704

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

¶705

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

¶706

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.”

¶707

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:

¶708

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

¶709

¶710

1098.2018FA Group

¶711

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

¶712

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 :

¶713

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."

¶714

¶715

1098.2018FA Group

¶716

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

¶717

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

¶718

"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

¶719

¶720

1098.2018FA Group

¶721

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.

¶722

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."

¶723

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:

¶724

"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

¶725

¶726

1098.2018FA Group

¶727

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.

¶728

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.

¶729

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.

¶730

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

¶731

¶732

1098.2018FA Group

¶733

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."

¶734

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

¶735

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

¶736

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

¶737

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

¶738

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

¶739

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

¶740

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

¶741

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

¶742

We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned advocates for the respective parties.

¶743

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

¶744

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 ?

¶745

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

¶746

¶747

1098.2018FA Group

¶748

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:

¶749

IN PARITY JUDGMENT:

¶750

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

¶751

¶752

1098.2018FA Group

¶753

IN PRESENT FIRST APPEALS:

¶754

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.

¶755

WITNESSES EXAMINED IN PARITY JUDGMENT:

¶756

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	--

¶757

¶758

1098.2018FA Group

¶759

WITNESSES EXAMINED IN PRESENT FIRST APPEALS :

¶760

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

¶761

SALE DEEDS CONSIDERED IN PARITY JUDGMENT:

¶762

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

¶763

¶764

1098.2018FA Group

¶765

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

¶766

SALE DEEDS RELIED ON IN PRESENT FIRST APPEALS:

¶767

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

¶768

Here, it will be apposite to refer to some of the judgments wherein, the Court has granted compensation on the basis of parity.

¶769

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.”

¶770

¶771

1098.2018FA Group

¶772

In the case of Bayaji Tatya Kalunge Vs. State of Maharashtra ,

¶773

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.

¶774

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.”

¶775

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.

¶776

¶777

1098.2018FA Group

¶778

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

¶779

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.

¶780

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.

¶781

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.

¶782

¶783

1098.2018FA Group

¶784

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.

¶785

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.

¶786

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.

¶787

¶788

1098.2018FA Group

¶789

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.

¶790

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.

¶791

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:

¶792

"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

¶793

¶794

1098.2018FA Group

¶795

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.

¶796

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.

¶797

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.

¶798

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.

¶799

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-

¶800

¶801

1098.2018FA Group

¶802

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.

¶803

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.

¶804

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.

¶805

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.

¶806

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

¶807

¶808

1098.2018FA Group

¶809

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.

¶810

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

¶811

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.

¶812

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

¶813

¶814

1098.2018FA Group

¶815

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

¶816

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.

¶817

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.

¶818

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.

¶819

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

¶820

¶821

1098.2018FA Group

¶822

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.

¶823

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.

¶824

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

¶825

"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.

¶826

¶827

1098.2018FA Group

¶828

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.

¶829

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.

¶830

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."

¶831

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

¶832

(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.

¶833

¶834

1098.2018FA Group

¶835

(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.

¶836

(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.

¶837

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:

¶838

"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.

¶839

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 decision on reference reported in 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457:

¶840

¶841

1098.2018FA Group

¶842

MANU/MH/0557/2016, in the case of “State of Maharashtra V/s Kailas Shiva Rangari”.

¶843

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.

¶844

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).

¶845

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."

¶846

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 appeals, statutory interest of 9% be granted for the first year from the

¶847

100

¶848

1098.2018FA Group

¶849

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.

¶850

As to Point No. B:-

¶851

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.

¶852

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 market rates of fruits by Agriculture and Horticulture Department of

¶853

101

¶854

1098.2018FA Group

¶855

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.

¶856

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.

¶857

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 District Superintendent Agricultural Officer and valuation done by the

¶858

102

¶859

1098.2018FA Group

¶860

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.

¶861

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.

¶862

103

¶863

1098.2018FA Group

¶864

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

¶865

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

¶866

below:-

¶867

"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."

¶868

In the result, we pass the following order :-

¶869

O R D E R

¶870

(i) Appeals by claimants are partly allowed.

¶871

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

¶872

(iii) Appeals by acquiring body are partly allowed.

¶873

104

¶874

1098.2018FA Group

¶875

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

¶876

(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.

¶877

(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.

¶878

¶879

(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.

¶880

(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, which are condoned by this Court, on the said condition.

¶881

(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.

¶882

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

¶883

105

¶884

1098.2018FA Group

¶885

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

¶886

(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.

¶887

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

¶888

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

¶889

[VAISHALI PATIL – JADHAV, J.]

¶890

[NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]

¶891

sga/

¶892

106

Prabhawati Laxman Wadje v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhawati Laxman Wadje 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.