Udhav Ashroba Gayke and Another vs the State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Parbhani and Ors.

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Bhise Vitthal Dnyanoba AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. S.N.Morampalle Advocate for Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Survase B.R.

¶13

22 FIRST APPEAL NO. 412 OF 2024

¶14

UDHAV ASHROBA GAYKE AND ANOTHER VERSUS

¶15

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, PARBHANI AND ORS

¶16

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Bhise Vitthal Dnyanoba AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr.S.V. Hange Advocate for Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Survase B.R.

¶17

23 FIRST APPEAL NO. 413 OF 2024

¶18

GULAB MANJIRAM GAYKE (DIED) THR LRS. MUKTABAI GULABRAO GAYKE AND ORS

¶19

VERSUS

¶20

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, PARBHANI AND ORS

¶21

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Bhise Vitthal Dnyanoba AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. N.D. Raje

¶22

1/5

¶23

20 to 26 FA 410 24+.odt

¶24

Advocate for Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Survase B.R.

¶25

24 FIRST APPEAL NO. 414 OF 2024

¶26

VIJAYKUMAR RATANLAL DARAK

¶27

VERSUS

¶28

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, PARBHANI AND ORS

¶29

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Bhise Vitthal Dnyanoba AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. S.N. Morampalle Advocate for Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Survase B.R.

¶30

25 FIRST APPEAL NO. 416 OF 2024

¶31

SY. CHANNU SY. LAL AND ANOTHER

¶32

VERSUS

¶33

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, PARBHANI AND ORS

¶34

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Bhise Vitthal Dnyanoba AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. S.N. Morampalle

¶35

Advocate for Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Survase B.R.

¶36

26 FIRST APPEAL NO. 417 OF 2024

¶37

KISAN BAPU SURVASE

¶38

VERSUS

¶39

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH THE COLLECTOR, PARBHANI AND ORS

¶40

Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Bhise Vitthal Dnyanoba

¶41

AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : Mr. S.V. Hanged

¶42

Advocate for Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Survase B.R.

¶43

CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 18.02.2026

¶44

ORDER :

¶45

.Heard both sides.

¶46

Appellants in respective first appeals are challenging common judgment and award dated 15.04.2015 passed in L.A.R. Nos. 63/2011, 73/2011, 3/2013, 55/2011, 74/2011, 65/2011, 76/2011. They are claiming

¶47

2/5

¶48

20 to 26 FA 410 24+.odt

¶49

enhancement of the compensation and the benefit of escalation on the ground of parity. For that purpose, reliance is placed on consistent view being taken by this Court in numerous matters. One such elaborate judgment is passed in the matter of Pralhad Annasaheb Nirwal vs. State of Maharashtra and others in First Appeal No.1778 of 2024 with connected matters on 11.12.2025 .

¶50

Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent - State and the learned counsel for the acquiring body would oppose the submissions. It is submitted that the ground of parity is not attracted in the present appeal. Appellants have failed to make a case for enhancement and the appeal is liable to be rejected.

¶51

In the present case, the lands from village Salegaon Tq. Selu, Dist. Parbhani, have been acquired for ‘Nimna Dudhana Project’. The lands have been classified as dry lands . The classification has not been disputed by both the parties. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 17.03.2005 which is relevant for determining the escalation.

¶52

Following are the material particular of the appeal :

¶53

FA Nos.	LAR Nos.	Gat Nos.	Total Acquire d area	Notification u/s.4	Award u/s. 11 date	SLAO rate as per award	Ld. Reference Court enhanced rate per R	Type Refer award	of land ence C ed	Ld. ourt
								Jiray at	Semi irriga ted	Irri gat ed	Pot kha rab
410/2024	63/2011	82	00-H 89-R	17.03.2005	19.06.2006	Rs 990/- & Rs.1009/-	Rs 2,250/-	00-H 89-R
411/2024	73/2011	10	00H 35-R	17.03.2005	19.06.2006	Rs 990/- & Rs.1009/-	Rs 2,250/-	00H 35-R
412/2024	3/2013	15	0H 47R	17.03.2005	19.06.2006	Rs 990/- & Rs.1009/-	Rs 2,250/-	0H 47R
413/2024	55/2011	10	0H 85R	17.03.2005	19.06.2006	Rs 990/- & Rs.1009/-	Rs 2,250/-	0H 85R
414/2024	74/2011	5	1H 12R	17.03.2005	19.06.2006	Rs 990/- & Rs.1009/-	Rs 2,250/-	1H 12R
416/2024	65/2011	6 & 164	0H 40R 0H 27R ---------- 0H 67R	17.03.2005	19.06.2006	Rs 990/- & Rs.1009/-	Rs 2,250/-	0H 67R

¶54

3/5

¶55

20 to 26 FA 410 24+.odt

¶56

417/2024	76/2011	44	0H 70R	17.03.2005	19.06.2006	Rs 990/- &	Rs 2,250/-	0H
						Rs.1009/-		70R

¶57

This Court has taken consistent view in the matters of acquisitions of lands from cluster of villages for ‘Nimna Dudhana Project’. After considering all aspects of the matters, rates of Rs. 2,500/- per Are for Jirayat land, Rs. 3,750/ per Are for Semi irrigated land, Rs. 5,000/- for per Are irrigated land and Rs. 1,250/- per Are for pot kharab land have been arrived at. The benefit of escalation has also been granted in numerous cases. Present case is squarely covered by one such common judgment of Pralhad Annasaheb Nirwal vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra). Appellants are entitled to receive rate of Rs. 2,500/- per Are for dry land, and escalation for 08 years 11 month and 17 days at the rate of 10% per annum. Thus the appellants are entitled to receive rate of Rs. 5,869/- per Are for dry land. The payment of interest shall be governed by the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari reported in [2016 AIR (Bom.)141] .

¶58

I, therefore, pass following order :

¶59

O R D E R

¶60

a. First Appeal is allowed partly.

¶61

b. The appellants shall be entitled to receive rate of Rs. 5,869/- per Are for dry lands.

¶62

c. The appellants shall not be entitled to the interest and statutory benefits for the delayed period.

¶63

d. The appellants shall be entitled to the interest under Section 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as per Full Bench judgment in the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra).

¶64