Bhanudas Dagdoba Barsale vs the State of Maharashtra through… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2026)

Bhanudas Dagdoba Barsale vs the State of Maharashtra through… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

First appeals allowed partly: enhanced rate of Rs.5889/- per R. for dry land; no interest or statutory benefits for the delayed period; interest payable under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as per the Full Bench decision in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari [2016 AIR (Bom.) 141]; impugned judgment and award to stand unaltered save this modification; appellants to pay deficit court fees, if any; record and proceeding to be sent back to the concerned Court, if any; award to be drawn accordingly.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants are entitled to enhancement of compensation and the benefit of escalation on the ground of parity with the rates consistently fixed by this Court in other 'Nimna Dudhana Project' acquisition matters. +1 more

Court's answer

On parity with the consistent view taken for 'Nimna Dudhana Project' acquisitions (including Pralhad Annasaheb Nirwal, First Appeal No.1778 of 2024), the appellants are entitled to enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.5889/- per R. for dry land, with escalation at 10% per annum reckoned from the Section 4 notification date of 22.02.2006.

Ratio / Principle

Payment of interest is governed by the Full Bench decision in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari; the appellants are entitled to interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in accordance with the law there laid down.

Key takeaways

The appellants are not entitled to interest and statutory benefits for the delayed period.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Land acquisition compensation — enhancement — parity/escalation. Common judgment disposing First Appeals Nos. 458, 459 and 460 of 2026 (Shailesh P. Brahme, J., Aurangabad Bench, 25.02.2026). Lands at village Digras (Bk), Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani, acquired for the 'Nimna Dudhana Project' (Section 4 notification, Land Acquisition Act 1894, dated 22.02.2006), were classified as dry lands — a classification not disputed by the parties. The appellants claimed enhancement of compensation and escalation benefit on the ground of parity with the consistent view taken by this Court in project acquisitions, notably Pralhad Annasaheb Nirwal Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (First Appeal No.1778 of 2024 with connected matters, 11.12.2025), wherein rates of Rs.2,500/- per R. (Jirayat), Rs.3,750/ per R. (semi-irrigated), Rs.5,000/- per R. (irrigated) and Rs.1,250/- per R. (pot kharab) were fixed along with escalation. Holding the present cases squarely covered, the Court allowed the appeals partly, entitling the appellants to Rs.5889/- per R. for dry land with escalation at 10% per annum; interest is payable under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as per the Full Bench decision in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari [2016 AIR (Bom.) 141], but the appellants get no interest or statutory benefits for the delayed period; the impugned judgment and award otherwise stand unaltered, and deficit court fees, if any, are to be paid by the appellants.

2026:BHC-AUG:9005

1 32-FA.459-26.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

32 FIRST APPEAL NO. 459 OF 2026

VITHAL DADARAO BARSALE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE COLLECTOR PARBHANI AND ORS.

WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 460 OF 2026 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 458 OF 2026

Advocate for Appellants : Mr. Bhise Vitthal Dnyanoba. AGP for Respondent/s-State : Mr. S. N. Morampalle. Advocate for Respondent No.3 : Mr. Patnurkar Vinayak. D.

CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 25.02.2026

FINAL ORDER :-

Heard both sides. Taken up for final disposal with the consent of the parties.

Appellants are challenging common judgment and award in respective references. They are claiming 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.

Learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions. It is submitted that the ground of parity is not attracted in the appeals.

1/3

2 32-FA.459-26.odt

Appellants have failed to make a case for enhancement and the appeals are liable to be rejected.

In the present cases, the land from village Digras (Bk), Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani has 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, 1894, was issued on 22.02.2006 which is relevant for determining the escalation.

5. Following are the material particulars of the appeals :

This Court has taken consistent view in the matter of acquisitions of lands from cluster of villages for ‘Nimna Dudhana Project’. After considering all aspects of the matter, rate of Rs.2,500/- per R. for Jirayat land Rs.3,750/ per R. for Semi irrigated land, Rs.5,000/- for per R. irrigated land and Rs.1,250/- per R. for pot kharab land have been arrived at. The benefit of escalation has also been granted in numerous cases. Present cases are squarely covered by one such common judgment of Pralhad Annasaheb

2/3

3 32-FA.459-26.odt

Nirwal (supra). Appellants are entitled to receive rate of Rs.5889/- per R. for dry land at the rate of 10% per annum. The payment of interest shall be governed by the decision of Full Bench in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash

Shiva Rangari [2016 AIR (Bom.)141] . I, therefore, pass following order :

ORDER

(i) First appeals are allowed partly.

(ii) The appellants shall be entitled to receive rate of Rs.5889/- per R. for dry land.

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

(iv) The appellants shall be entitled to interest under Section 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as per law laid down in the judgment of Full Bench in case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari [2016 AIR (Bom.) 141] .

(v) Save and except above modification. Impugned judgment and award shall stand unaltered.

(vi) The appellants shall pay deficit court fees, if any.

(vii) Record and proceeding be sent back to the concerned Court, if

any.

(viii) Award be drawn accordingly.

(SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)

vmk/-

3/3