Bombay High Court

Mahasing Asaram Gusinge vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 4 November, 2025

2025:BHC-AUG:30117


                                                                         FA-3301-2022
                                                   -1-

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 3301 OF 2022

                 Mahasing s/o Asaram Gusinge
                 Age 54 years, Occu. Agril.,
                 R/o Rajewadi, [Selgaon],
                 Tq. Badnapur,
                 Dist. Jalna.                                     ... Appellant
                                                                  [Orig. Claimant]
                       versus

                 1.    The State of Maharashtra
                       Through Collector, Jalna.

                 2.    The Special Land Acquisition
                       Officer (Gaothan), Jalna

                 3.   The Executive Engineer
                      Minor Irrigation Division Jalna,
                      Near Motibagh, Jalna,
                      Tq. & Dist. Jalna.                          ... Respondent
                                                   .....
                             Mr. D. M. Pingale, Advocate for the Appellant
                      Mr. S. P. Joshi, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2-State
                          Mr. S. G. Bhalerao, Advocate for Respondent No.3
                                                   .....

                                               CORAM :     ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                                               Reserved on        : 13.10.2025
                                               Pronounced on      : 04.11.2025

                 JUDGMENT :

1. Dissatisfied by the judgment and award dated 18.07.2013

passed by learned Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, "the Act"] in LAR 894/2010 (Old No.

145/2008), original land owner-claimant has preferred instant FA-3301-2022

appeal, primarily getting dissatisfied by amount of compensation for

acquisition of his land for construction of Rajewadi Storage Tank,

Bharadkheda, Taluka Badnapur, District Jalna.

FACTS IN BRIEF, GIVING RISE TO APPEAL

2. State Government on behalf of Executive Engineer, Minor

Project, initiated proceedings of acquisition of land for Rajewadi

Storage Tank. Firstly, the Special Land Acquisition Officer [SLAO]

awarded rate of Rs.1,410/- per R for the land of Appellant. Aggrieved

by such amount, present appellant moved before Reference Court

under Section 18, which Court was pleased to observe that claimant is

entitled for compensation @ Rs.2,500/- per R. Again dissatisfied by

the said quantum, instant appeal has been preferred seeking further

enhancement i.e. to the tune of Rs.8,250/- per R.

3. Heard. The principle grounds put forth are that, both, SLAO as

well as learned Reference Court failed to consider and appreciate the

actual market value of the land, its location, proximity to area having

higher potential and moreover, land was bagayat and not jirayat,

which is held by both, SLAO as well as learned Reference Court.

Learned counsel emphasized that 7/12 Extract clearly demonstrates

existence of well in acquired land gat no.893 i.e. 7/12 extract at FA-3301-2022

Exhibit 22. That, learned Reference Court erred in holding that there

was well but there was no evidence about sufficient water to the well

for cultivating wet crops. Such findings of Reference Court are

precisely questioned before this Court.

4. Another point that is pressed into service is non-consideration

of highest sale instance, and on such count, reliance is sought on

judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chindha Fakira Patil (D)

through L.RS v. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon AIR

2012 SC 481/2012 AIR SCW 270 and recent judgment of Hon'ble

Apex Court in Manohar v. State of Maharashtra AIR OnLine 2025 SC

661 as well as judgment of this Court in the case of Raghunath Baba

Pathare & Others v. State of Maharashtra 2009 (5) AIR Bom. R 798.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent acquiring body resisted on

the ground that though 7/12 extract was placed on record, there is

clear finding on perusal of actual record by both, SLAO as well as

Reference Court, that there was no water to the well. Even the crop

pattern demonstrated land to be jirayat and not bagayat. He further

submitted that there is correct appreciation of available record for

ascertaining the rate of compensation and ultimately he urged to

dismiss the appeal for want of merits.

FA-3301-2022

6. Heard. Perused the record. Undisputedly, land of present

appellant has been acquired by Government for storage tank. The

SLAO seems to have awarded rate of Rs.1,410/- per R, whereas the

Reference Court enhanced it to Rs.2,500/- per R. Now claimant urged

rate of Rs.8,250/- per R and primarily, the grounds which are pressed

into service are, existence of well showing land to be bagayat one and

secondly, non-consideration of sale instance Exhibit 26 which,

according to claimant, reflects the exact market value of the non-

irrigated land at relevant time.

7. Perused the evidence of claimant as well as said sale instance.

The 7/12 extract (Exhibit 22) undisputedly does show availability of

well in the land gat no. 893 which is undisputedly owned by the

appellant and which came to be acquired. Observations of Reference

Court that though there is well, but there is no sufficient water, in the

considered opinion of this Court, such view is incorrect. Merely

because there is no sufficient source of water in the well at that

particular time, is not an indicator to rule out land to be irrigated one.

It is common knowledge that in natural course and by course of

regular monsoons and rainfall, well water rises and it is not static.

Therefore, mere existence of well, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court FA-3301-2022

in the case of Chindha Fakira (supra) is itself sufficient to declare land

as irrigated one.

8. Similarly law is fairly settled that mere crop pattern is not

decisive of quality of land i.e. whether it is jirayat or Bagayat, as it is

entire choice of the land owner to reap the harvest of his own liking

and choice depending upon the pattern of consumption in the vicinity

and the quality of yield that would fetch price on its sale. With this

view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this Court, both the

forums below erred in not considering the land falling in gat no. 893

to be bagayat one.

9. The documentary evidence which is placed on record, i.e

Exhibit 26 dated 05.05.2003 shows that the vendor and purchaser

agreed to transact the seasonally irrigated land @ Rs.3,750/- per R.

On perusal of said sale deed at Exhibit 26, it seems that total 20 R

land was sold along with share in the water of well available in the

gat. On carefully going through Exhibit 26, the opening text of the

sale instance itself shows that said land was seasonally irrigated even

when there was well in the said land. Here, facts are peculiar. There

is well, but as stated above, land is held to be jirayat and such

reasoning has no foundation and is contrary to the facts. This Court FA-3301-2022

has time and again adopted the thumb rule that when land is shown

to be jirayat and when evidence suggests it to be bagayat, then double

the rate granted for jirayat land is granted by holding the land to be

irrigated one. By applying the same rule, the land owned by the

appellant in gat no. 893 being shown to be bagayat, appellants are

entitled for double rate than the one awarded for the jirayat land. The

order of Reference Court is required to be modified to that extent by

interfering in the same. The calculations shown by learned counsel for

the appellants seeking rate of Rs.8,250/- per R has no sound and

strong foundation so as to accept the same.

10. In view of the above discussion, the rate of Rs.2,500/- per R, as

awarded by the learned Reference Court for dry land, needs to be

doubled for the irrigated land which comes to Rs.5,000/- per R.

Compensation for the land acquired from gat no. 893 needs to be

awarded at such rate by enhancing the compensation.

11. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled for compensation @

Rs.5,000/- per R (inclusive of the enhanced compensation of

Rs.2,500/- per R) for land acquired from gat no. 893. Hence the

following order is passed :

FA-3301-2022

ORDER

I. The First Appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs.

II. The judgment and award dated 18.07.2013 passed by the Reference Court in LAR No. 894 of 2010 (Old LAR No. 145/2008) is modified to the effect that the claimant shall be paid enhanced compensation @ Rs.2,500/- per R for the area of land acquired from gat no. 893.

III. So far as the area of land acquired from the land gat no. 915 is concerned, there shall be no change in rate awarded by the Reference Court.

IV. Rest of the order of the Reference Court granting rate of interest and statutory benefits not being touched upon or challenged, there is no change in the same.