[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Ambadas Bhanudas Sakalkar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 11 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:35437
(1) FA-1778-2024+
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
905 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1778 OF 2024
PRALHAD ANNASAHEB NIRWAL
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR, JALNA AND
OTHERS
AND
906 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2260 OF 2021
GANPAT UTTAMRAO SAKALKAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
AND
907 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2261 OF 2021
AMBADAS BHANUDAS SAKALKAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
AND
908 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2262 OF 2021
KARBHARI BAPURAO DUGANE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
AND
909 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2263 OF 2021
SHAIKH BABAMIYA SHAIKH RAHIM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
AND
(2) FA-1778-2024+
910 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2264 OF 2021
NAMDEO TRIMBAK MOGARE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
AND
911 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2265 OF 2021
KAUSHABAI KASHINATH MORE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
AND
912 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2266 OF 2021
VISHVANATH NIVRUTTI DUGANE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
AND
913 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2267 OF 2021
DNYANOBA NAMDEO KAKADE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
AND
914 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2268 OF 2021
KASHINATH BHUJANGRAO DUGANE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
AND
915 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2269 OF 2021
KAUSHALYABAI GOVINDRAO SAKALKAR
VERSUS
(3) FA-1778-2024+
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
AND
916 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2271 OF 2021
MUKTIRAM HARIBHAU PITALE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
AND
917 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2272 OF 2021
MAHADEV VISHWANATH DUGANE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
AND
918 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2273 OF 2021
ASHROBA TUKARAM SONPASARE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
AND
919 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2274 OF 2021
PARUBAI NARAYAN HINGE (DIED) THR LRS PANDIT NARAYAN
HINGE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
AND
920 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2275 OF 2021
MANOHAR AMBADAS KANADE AND ORS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
AND
(4) FA-1778-2024+
921 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2276 OF 2021
KALYAN RAMRAO SAKALKAR AND ANR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
AND
922 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2277 OF 2021
GOVINDRAO ASHROBA SAKALKAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
AND
923 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2278 OF 2021
DILIP JANARDHAN GUNJAL
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
AND
924 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2280 OF 2021
NIVRUTTI NEELOBA DUGANE (DIED) THR LRS VISHWANATH
NIVRUTTI DUGANE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
AND
925 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2281 OF 2021
HARIBHAU BAPURAO PITALE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
AND
926 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2282 OF 2021
DEEPAK SHRIKRISHNA SAKALKAR
(5) FA-1778-2024+
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
AND
927 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2283 OF 2021
SAROJINIBAI SAHEBRAO DUGANE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
AND
928 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2284 OF 2021
GEETARAM AMBADAS KANADE (DIED) THR LRS ANNAPURNA
GEETARAM KANADE AND ORS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
AND
929 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2285 OF 2021
LAXMAN BAPURAO DUGANE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
AND
930 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2286 OF 2021
KHOBRAJI RAMBHAU DUGANE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
AND
931 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2287 OF 2021
RAMBHAU KHOBRAJI DUGANE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
(6) FA-1778-2024+
AND
932 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2288 OF 2021
UTTAM BAPURAO SAKALKAR (DIED) THR LRS GANPAT AND ORS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
AND
933 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2289 OF 2021
ABDUL KHALEK ABDUL WAHED
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
AND
934 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2290 OF 2021
MAHADEV KARBHARI DUGANE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
AND
935 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2291 OF 2021
JARINA BEGAM ABDUL KHALEK
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR COLLECTOR, JALNA AND ORS
AND
936 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2292 OF 2021
RAMRAO DEVRAO SAKALKAR (DIED) THR LRS CHANDRAKALA AND
ORS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
AND
937 FIRST APPEAL NO. 268 OF 2022
(7) FA-1778-2024+
PANDIT NARAYANRAO HINGE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR COLLECTOR, JALNA AND ORS
AND
938 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2230 OF 2022
VYANKATRAO KONDIBA NAWAL THR HIS GPA BHAUSAHEB
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
AND
939 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2272 OF 2022
PARASRAM DAJIBA MORE (DIED) THR LRS MATHURABAI AND ANR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
AND
940 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2313 OF 2022
ANSIRAM KONDIBA NAWAL (DIED) THR LRS MAHADEO AND ANR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
AND
941 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2493 OF 2022
MATHURABAI PARASRAM MORE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
AND
942 FIRST APPEAL NO. 4227 OF 2022
PANDIT NARAYAN HINGE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR COLLECTOR, JALNA AND ORS
(8) FA-1778-2024+
AND
943 FIRST APPEAL NO. 4237 OF 2022
DNYANOBA PANDITRAO HINGE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR COLLECTOR, JALNA AND ORS
AND
944 FIRST APPEAL NO. 137 OF 2023
KASHINATH BHUJANGRAO DUGANE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR COLLECTOR, JALNA AND ORS
AND
945 FIRST APPEAL NO. 252 OF 2023
VISHNU KASHINATH MORE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR COLLECTOR, JALNA AND ORS
AND
946 FIRST APPEAL NO. 254 OF 2023
BAPURAO HARIBHAU PITALE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR COLLECTOR, JALNA AND ORS
Shri. Deepak M. Kakade and Shri. V. D. Bhise, Advocate for Apellants
in respective First Appeals
Smt. M. N. Ghanekar and Shri. N. R. Dayma, AGP in respective First
Appeals
Shri. Shyam C. Arora, Shri. R. H. Wagh, Shri. A. N. Gaddime, Shri.
Akash D. Gade, Shri. Mahesh C. Swami, Shri. B. R. Survase and Mrs.
Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar (V/C), Advocates for Acquiring Body in
respective First Appeals.
(9) FA-1778-2024+
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 11.12.2025
JUDGMENT :
-
. First Appeal No.2270 Of 2021 is removed from board.
First Appeal No.2269 of 2021 is not on board. After mentioning, taken
on board.
2. Heard both sides finally at the admission stage with their
consent.
3. The appellants, who are original claimants, have preferred
these First Appeals for enhancement, being dissatisfied with the fact
that the enhancement has not been granted by the Reference Court by
applying annual escalations. The issue is already covered by earlier
judgments. The facts and circumstances of all the appeals are identical
substantially, hence I propose to decide the appeals by common
judgment.
4. The acquisition in question is in respect of the 'Nimnna
Dudhana' project. The lands which are under acquisition are from
village Mapegaon, Taluka Partur, District Jalna. Those are being
( 10 ) FA-1778-2024+
classified into dry land, seasonal irrigated land, irrigated land and pot
kharab land. Interestingly, the classification made by the Reference
Court as well as rate awarded for the land have not been disputed by
both parties to the present appeals. The learned counsels appearing for
the appellants have made candid statement that the rate awarded by
Reference Court of Rs.2500/- per Are for dry land, Rs.3750/- per Are
for seasonal irrigated land, Rs.5000/-per Are for irrigated land and
Rs.1250/-per Are for pot kharab land are not under challenge.
5. Following material particulars are useful for deciding the
controversy :
Sr. No. Name of Parties FA NO. LAR NO. Gut No. Acquired Area In ARE
Dry Seasonal Irrigated Pot
Land. Irrigation Land kharab
1. PRALLAHD ANNASAHEB NIRWAL 1778/2024 376/2014 11/2 0 214 0 0
GANPAT UTTAM SAKALKARV/S STATE OF
2. MAH. & OTHERS
2260/2021 43/2011 5/B 143 0 0 0
AMBADAS BHANUDAS SAKALKARV/S
3. STATE OF MAH. & OTHERS
2261/2021 39/2011 19/2 K 222 0 0 4
KARBHARI BAPURAO DUGANEV/S STATE
4. OF MAH. & OTHERS
2262/2021 38/2011 18/2 ,42/2 44 73 16 0
SK BABAMIYA SK. RAHIMV/S STATE OF
5. MAH. & OTHERS
2263/2021 466/2011 20/2,22/1 160 0 0 0
NAMDEO TRIMBAK MOGAREV/S STATE
6. OF MAH. & OTHERS
2264/2021 783/2011 8/1-B,93/A 163 0 0 0
SMT. KAUSHABAI KASHINATH MOREV/S 62/2&65/3
7. STATE OF MAH. & OTHERS
2265/2021 483/2011
825 0 0 4
VISHAWANATH NIVRUTI DUGANEV/S
8. STATE OF MAH. & OTHERS
2266/2021 482/2011 53/2 0 165 0 0
53/3,
DNYANOBA NAMDEO KAKDEV/S STATE
9. OF MAH. & OTHERS
2267/2021 462/2011 43/4, 275 23 0 12
14/6, 7A
KASHINATH BHUJANGRAO DUGANE V/S
10. STATE OF MAH. & OTHERS
2268/2021 782/2011 14/5,7K 44 0 0 0
KAUSHALYABAI GOVINDRAO SAKALKAR
11. V/S STATE OF MAH. & OTHERS
2269/2021 478/2011 65/3A 127 0 0 0
MUKTIRAM HARIBHAU PITALE V/S STATE
12. OF MAH. & OTHERS
2271/2021 28/2011 72/2 170 0 0 0
MAHADEV VISHAWANATH DUGANE V/S 43/9E,43/
13. STATE OF MAH. & OTHERS
2272/2021 480/2011
9B
129 0 0 0
ASHRUBA TUKARAM SONPASARE V/S
14. STATE OF MAH. & OTHERS
2273/2021 459/2011 48/2B 83 0 0 1
SMT PARUBAI NARAYAN HINGE V/S
15. STATE OF MAH. & OTHERS
2274/2021 481/2011 66/2 155 0 0 0
MANOHAR AMBADAS KANADE V/S
16. STATE OF MAH. & OTHERS
2275/2021 465/2011 72/4 171 0 0 0
KALYAN RAMRAO SAKALKAR V/S STATE
17. OF MAH. & OTHERS
2276/2021 30/2011 89/A, B 196 0 0 0
GOVINDRAO ASHRUBA SAKALKAR V/S
18. STATE OF MAH. & OTHERS
2277/2021 37/2011 64/2 0 133 0 0
DILIP JANADHAN GUNJAL V/S STATE OF
19. MAH. & OTHERS
2278/2021 471/2011 68,69 125 138 0 0
NIVRUTTI NILOBA DUGANE V/S STATE 14/6,7/B,
20. OF MAH. & OTHERSV
2280/2021 31/2011
14/4, 43/6
116 0 0 0
HARIBHAU BAPURAO PITALE V/S STATE
21. OF MAH. & OTHERSV
2281/2021 468/2011 96/4, 5 271 40 0 3
DEEPAK SHRIKRUSHNA SAKALKAR V/S
22. STATE OF MAH. & OTHERSV
2282/2021 463/2011 3/1A 53 133 0 0
SMT. SAROJANIBAI SAHEBRAO DUGANE
23. V/S STATE OF MAH. & OTHERSV
2283/2021 35/2011 43/4 74 0 0 0
GEETARAM AMBADAS KANADE V/S
24. STATE OF MAH. & OTHERSV
2284/2021 4/2012 72/3,72/4 163 7 0 0
LAXMAN BAPURAO DUGANE V/S STATE 21/2/3,
25. OF MAH. & OTHERSV
2285/2021 46/2011
24/2, 42/2
151 83 0 0
KHOBRAJI RAMBHAU DUGANE V/S
26. STATE OF MAH. & OTHERSV
2286/2021 464/2011 15/K 100 0 0 0
RAMBHAU KHOBARAJI DUGANE V/S 60/B,15/B,
27. STATE OF MAH. & OTHERSV
2287/2021 474/2011
92/B
559 0 0 9
UTTAM BAPURAO SAKALKAR V/S STATE
28. OF MAH. & OTHERSV
2288/2021 52/2011 39/A 101 0 0 14
2/A,2/
ABDUL KHALEK ABDUL WAHED V/S
29. STATE OF MAH. & OTHERS
2289/2021 50/2011 B,9/A,9/ 0 1346 83 6
B,10/A
MAHADEV KARBHARI DUGANE V/S
30. STATE OF MAH. & OTHERSV
2290/2021 47/2011 30/2 128 0 0 1
SMT. JARINA BEGUM ABDUL KHALEK
31. V/S STATE OF MAH. & OTHERSV
2291/2021 41/2011 56 84 33 0 3
39/
RAMRAO DEVRAO SAKALKAR V/S STATE
32. OF MAH. & OTHERSV
2292/2021 42/2011 E,25/1A,26 419 67 0 0
,43/3,39/E
PANDIT NARAYAN HINGE V/S STATE OF
33. MAH. & OTHERSV
268/2022 48/2011 66/2 156 0 0 0
VYANKATRAO KONDIBA NAWAL THR HIS
34. GPA BHAUSAHEBTHE STATE OF 2230/2022 477/2011 26 320 0 0 0
MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
PARASRAM DAJIBA MORE (DIED) THR
35. LRS MATHURABAI AND ANRTHE STATE 2272/2022 833/2011
801 0 0 3
OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
ANSIRAM KONDIBA NAWAL (DIED) THR
36. LRS MAHADEO AND ANRTHE STATE OF 2313/2022 457/2011 26 212 0 27 R 0
MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
MATHURABAI PARASRAM MORETHE
37. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
2493/2022 461/2011 65/1B 67 0 0 0
PANDIT NARAYAN HINGE V/S STATE OF
38. MAH. & OTHERS
4227/2022 831/2011 66/2 61 0 0
DNYANOBA PANDITRAO HINGE V/S
39. STATE OF MAH. & OTHERSV
4237/2022 458/2011 66/2 155 0 0 0
KASHINATH BHUJANGRAO DUGANE V/S
40. STATE OF MAH. & OTHERS
VISHNU KASHINATH MOREV/S STATE OF
41. MAH. & OTHERS
252/2023 479/2011 65/2 392 0 0
BAPURAO HARIBHAU PITALE V/S STATE
42. OF MAH. & OTHERSV
254/2023 51/2011 72/2 169 0 0 1
( 15 ) FA-1778-2024+
6. In all the appeals, notification under Section 4 was issued
on 11.07.2002. The Award under Section 11 was passed on
11.02.2006. The Reference Court by impugned judgment and award in
each appeal awarded rate of Rs.2500/- per Are for dry land, Rs.3750/-
per Are for seasonal irrigated land, Rs.5000/-per Are for irrigated land
and Rs.1250/-per Are for pot kharab land.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the
Reference Court committed patent illegality in depriving the appellants
from annual escalation. The rule of annual escalation laid down by the
Supreme Court in the matter of Huchanagouda vs. The Assistant
Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer and Ors. ought to have
been followed. The reliance is placed on following judgments :
(1) Ali Mohammad Beigh and Ors vs. State of J & K
reported in AIR 2017 SC 1518
(2) Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development
Corporation and Others vs. Vaijnath Rangnath Manvatkar
reported in First Appeal Stamp No.17242 of 2014 with
connected matters.
(3) Judgment dated 11.09.2018 of Supreme Court in
Vishvanath s/o Narayan Late etc. vs. State of Maharashtra
(4) Judgment dated 19.08.2022 of High Court in
( 16 ) FA-1778-2024+
Shashikala Bapurao Manwatkar vs. The State of Maharashtra
reported in First Appeal No.1958 of 2018 with connected
matters.
(5) Common judgment dated 07.02.2023 of High Court in
First Appeal No.1351 of 2009 and connected matters.
(6) Judgment dated 14.07.2022 of High Court in First
Appeal No.2939 of 2012 with connected matters.
(7) Order dated 20.10.2023 of Supreme Court in The
Executive Engineer Jalna vs. Ankitabai Damodar Honde
(8) Judgment dated 14.11.2025 of High Court in First
Appeal No.2259 of 2021.
(9) Ningappa Thotappa Angadi (Dead) Through Legal
Representatives vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and
Another reported in (2020) 19 Supreme Court Cases 599
(10) Union of India vs. Bal Ram and Another reported in
AIR 2004 SC 3981.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-acquiring
body and learned AGP vehemently contest the matter. It is submitted
that the appellants have failed to prove that the acquired lands are
identically situated for claiming the enhancement. The ground of
parity cannot be pressed into service blindly. It is further submitted
that the escalation by cumulative effect cannot be permitted to be
applied. It is submitted that no case in made out for enhancement by
( 17 ) FA-1778-2024+
applying belting system. The reliance is also placed on the village map
to show that the locations of the village from which lands are acquired
and the difference in geographical situations. The reliance is placed on
following judgments :
(1) Bhule Ram vs. Union of India and Anr. reported in
2014 SC 1957.
(2) Chandrashekhar and Ors. vs. Addl. Special Land
Acquisition Officer, reported in AIR 2009 SC 3012
9. It is relevant to note that the acquiring body has not
preferred any appeal challenging impugned judgment and award
passed by the Reference Court. The appellants have no grievance for
the rate of Rs.2500/- per Are awarded for the dry land and
consequential rates considering type of land.
10. When the lands were acquired from village Satona, the
notification was published on 31.03.1996. The Reference Court vide
judgment dated 15.04.2009 in LAR No.59 of 2002 fixed the rate of
Rs.2500/- per Are for dry land and consequently Rs.1250/- per Are for
Pot Kharab land. First Appeal Stamp No.17242 of 2014 which was
preferred by the acquiring body was withdrawn. On the basis of the
( 18 ) FA-1778-2024+
rate fixed for the lands from village Satona, the claimants whose lands
were acquired from Village Deola and Raniwahegaon and who had
been given compensation at a lesser rate, approached the Supreme
Court in the matter of Vishvanath s/o Narayan Late (supra). The
matter was remanded to High Court vide order dated 11.09.2018
considering the disparity in the rates.
11. The coordinate bench in First Appeal No.1958 of 2018
while deciding the appeals in respect of the lands from village
Raniwahegaon and Deola acquired for selfsame project, approved the
rate of Rs.2400/- per Are which was accepted in other matters before
Lok Adalat. Thereafter, by common judgment dated 07.02.2023, the
claimants whose lands from village Deola were acquired had
approached the High Court and First Appeal No.1351 of 2009 and
connected matters were decided, awarding rate of Rs.2400/- per Are
for dry land relying on the rates fixed in earlier litigation. In First
Appeal No.2939 of 2021, the High Court allowed the First Appeal by
approving the rate of Rs.2250/- per Are for dry land. A deduction of
10% was considered in the matter and the lands were from village
Hondegaon.
( 19 ) FA-1778-2024+
12. The judgment referred above passed in First Appeal
No.2939 of 2021 and connected matters was challenged in the
Supreme Court by the acquiring body and Special Leave Petition (SLP)
was dismissed on 20.10.2023. Lastly, this Court had the occasion to
consider the rate in respect of acquisition of the land from village
Mapegaon. Considering the previous judgments as well as the selfsame
submissions made by the counsels of the acquiring body, the rate of
Rs.2500/- per Are which was fixed for lands from village Satona was
approved in First Appeal No.2259 of 2021. The geographical position
considering the map was also dealt with.
13. In view of the above history of litigation, it is evident that
a consistent view has been taken by the Courts in awarding rate of
Rs.2500/- per Are for dry land. Appellants have rightly relied on the
judgment of Ali Mohammad Beigh and Ors (Supra). It is apposite to
refer to Paragraph Nos.13 and 14 which as follows :
"13. When the lands are more or less situated nearby and
when the acquired lands are identical and similar and the
acquisition is for the same purpose, it would not be proper to
discriminate between the land owners unless there are
strong reasons. In Union of India vs. Bal Ram and Another
(2010) 5 SCC 747, this Court held that if the purpose of
( 20 ) FA-1778-2024+
acquisition is same and when the lands are identical and
similar though lying in different villages, there is no
justification to make any discrimination between the land
owners to pay more to some of the land owners and less
compensation to others. The same was the view taken in
Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh and Others. (2005) 12
SCC 564, where this Court held as under:-
"15. We have carefully considered the submissions
made on behalf of the respective parties and we see
no justification to interfere with the decision of the
Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High
Court which, in our view, took a pragmatic
approach in fixing the market value of the lands
forming the subject-matter of the acquisition
proceedings at a uniform rate. From the sketch plan
of the area in question, it appears to us that while
the lands in question are situated in five different
villages, they can be consolidated into one single
unit with little to choose between one stretch of
land and another. The entire area is in a stage of
development and the different villages are capable
of being developed in the same manner as the lands
comprised in Kala Ghanu Pur where the market
value of the acquired lands was fixed at a uniform
rate of Rs 40,000 per acre. The Division Bench of
the Punjab and Haryana High Court discarded the
belting method of valuation having regard to the
local circumstances and features and no cogent
ground has been made out to interfere with the
same.
16. In our view, in the absence of any
contemporaneous document, the market value of
the acquired lands of Village Kala Ghanu Pur which
were acquired at the same time as the lands in the
other five villages was correctly taken to be a
comparative unit for determination of the market
value of the lands comprising the lands forming the
subject-matter of the acquisition proceedings under
( 21 ) FA-1778-2024+
consideration......."
14. When the lands are acquired at the same time and for
the same purpose that is for resettlement of Dal dwellers, the
lands situated in three different villages namely,
Chandapora, Bhagichandpora and Pazwalpora, and since the
land is similar land, it would be unfair to discriminate
between the land owners and other references and the
appellants who are the land owners in Reference No.15 and
pay less that is Rs.2,50,000/- per Kanal to the appellants and
pay more to other land owners that is Rs.4,00,000/- per
Kanal. Impugned judgments of the High Court in CIA No.
211/2009 and Cross Appeal No. 64/2011 are to be set aside
by enhancing the compensation to Rs.4,00,000 per Kanal. As
a sequel to this, the order passed in review is also to be set
aside."
14. This Court is bound by law laid down by the Supreme
Court. If the lands identical in nature but situated in different villages
would fetch same rates if they are acquired for selfsame project and
the villages form a cluster.
15. In Case of Huchanagouda (Supra), it is laid down by the
Supreme Court that annual escalation by cumulative effect is
permissible. In the present matters, the difference is more than six
years from 31.03.1996 to 11.07.2002. Appellants are entitled to have
escalation of 10% per annum for six years. I find no merit in the
objection raised by acquiring body in respect of escalation as well as
cumulative effect.
( 22 ) FA-1778-2024+
16. The respondents did not lead any evidence before the
Reference Court. They did not challenge the impugned judgment and
award. Considering peculiar geographical situation and the village
map, I find no substance in the submission of the respondent that
belting system has not been applied for fixing the rate. It cannot be
overlooked that the lands under acquisition are interior rural lands. No
National Highway, State Highway or road is seen in the vicinity. The
objection regarding belting system was not taken by acquiring body
before the Reference Court. Judgment of Bhule Ram vs. Union of India
(supra) will not help respondents.
17. For the reasons stated above, I find that all the appeals
deserve to be allowed partly. Appellants are entitled to have the
following rates, considering the escalation for six years with
cumulative effect :
(a) Rs.4426/- per Are for dry land
(b) Rs.2213/- per Are for pot kharab land
(c) Rs.6639/- per Are for semi-irrigated land
(d) Rs.8852/- per Are for irrigated land
( 23 ) FA-1778-2024+
18. I, therefore, pass the following order :
ORDER
(i) All First Appeals are allowed partly.
(ii) Impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court
shall stand modified to the extent that appellants are entitled to
have the following rates :
(a) Rs.4426/- per Are for dry land
(b) Rs.2213/- per Are for pot kharab land
(c) Rs.6639/- per Are for semi-irrigated land
(d) Rs.8852/- per Are for irrigated land, considering the nature
of their land classified by the Reference Court.
(iii) Save and except above modification, rest of the impugned
judgment and award shall remain unaltered.
(iv) Award by drawn accordingly.
(v) Appellants shall pay the deficit court fees.
(vi) R and P be sent back to the Reference Court.
(vii) Appellants shall not be entitled to the interest and statutory
benefits for the delayed period.
( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. )
PRW
