Bombay High Court
Babu Bhanudas Jagtap (Died) Thr Lrs ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 9 October, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:28294
1 fa 3681.19 with fa 3682.19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3681 OF 2019
Uddhav Aba Muluk
(Died through L.Rs.)
1. Ankush S/o Uddhav Muluk,
Age : 58 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Tandulwadi, Tq. Paranda,
Dist. Osmanabad.
2. Shankar S/o Uddhav Muluk,
Age : 43 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o As above.
3. Lata Bharat Chavan,
Age : 63 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Undegaon, Tq. Madha,
Dist. Solapur.
4. Uma Ajinath Talekar,
Age : 53 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Kem, Tq. Karmala,
Dist. Solapur.
5. Padmin Bibishan Hore,
Age : 46 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Tandulwadi, Tq. Paranda,
Dist. Osmanabad.
6. Sukeshani Prakash Bhosale,
Age : 43 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Komalwadi, Tq. Georai,
Dist. Beed. .. Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
2 fa 3681.19 with fa 3682.19
Through Collector, Osmanabad.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Osmanabad.
3. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
C/o Sub Divisional Office, Bhoom,
Tq. Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad. .. Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3682 OF 2019
Babu Bhanudas Jagtap
(Died through L.Rs.)
1. Sharda W/o Janardhan Jadhav
Age : 52 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Patoda, Tq. Patoda,
Dist. Beed.
2. Surekha Sitaram Dhobale,
Age : 49 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Kada, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed.
3. Kavita Dhanaji Padwal,
Age : 45 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Shindewadi, Tq. Madha,
Dist. Solapur.
4. Maharudra Baburao Jagtap,
Age : 41 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Tandulwadi, Tq. Paranda,
Dist. Osmanabad.
5. Chitra Navnath Tipale,
Age : 37 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
R/o Kumbephal, Tq. Paranda,
Dist. Osmanabad.
6. Asha Baburao Jagtap,
Age : 47 Years, Occu. : Agril.,
3 fa 3681.19 with fa 3682.19
R/o Tandulwadi, Tq. Paranda,
Dist. Osmanabad. .. Appellants
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Osmanabad.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Minor Irrigation, Osmanabad.
3. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
C/o Sub Divisional Office, Bhoom,
Tq. Bhoom, Dist. Osmanabad. .. Respondents
Shri S. S. Jadhavar, Advocate for the Appellants in both matters.
Shri B. A. Shinde, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 in both
matters.
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
CLOSED FOR JUDGMENT ON : 01.10.2025
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 09.10.2025
JUDGMENT :
-
. Heard both sides.
2. These appeals can be decided by common judgment and
order as they are emanating from self same acquisition
proceedings and a common judgment and award passed by the
Reference Court is under challenge.
3. Appellants are the claimants, who are aggrieved by
common judgment and award dated 15.06.2015 passed by Civil
4 fa 3681.19 with fa 3682.19
Judge Senior Division, Paranda in L.A.R. No. 600 of 2011 and
L.A.R. No. 598 of 2011. Their lands were acquired for percolation
tank situated at village Tandalwadi, Tq. Paranda, Dist.
Osmanabad. They are the owners of the agricultural lands. The
notification U/Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereafter
referred as to the "L. A. Act" for the sake of brevity and
convenience) was published on 28.10.1999. Notification of the
U/Sec. 6 of the L. A. Act was published on 28.02.2002. A final
award was passed on 31.03.2003. Appellants had withdrawn the
amount deposited in pursuance of the award under the protest.
Simultaneously, they preferred references were preferred.
4. In First Appeal No. 3681 of 2019 part of land gut No. 790
and in First Appeal No. 3682 of 2019 part of gut No. 792 were
acquired. The possession was taken over by the acquiring body
in both cases on 26.11.1997.
5. Following are the relevant details in both the appeals.
Sr. F. A. No. LAR No. Area Market Awarded Entitle-
No. Value Amount ment
Rs. Rs. Rs.
1 3681/2019 600/2011 01H 00R 1,00,000/- 1,70,000 2,50,000/
per acre
2 3682/2019 598/2011 00H 18R 1,00,000/- 25,000/- 45,000/-
per acre
6. Before the Reference Court they made out a case of
enhancement of compensation. It was contended that their land
5 fa 3681.19 with fa 3682.19
was rich black cotton soil having superior quality. However, both
of them restricted their claim to the amount of Rs. 25,000/- in
L.A.R. No. 598 of 2011 and Rs. 1,73,035/- in L.A.R. No 600 of
2011.
7. The Reference Court considered the sale instances and the
relevant record. By reasoned order they are held to be entitled
for the enhancement of the compensation. The last column of
above table shows their entitlement. However, due to their
restriction of the compensation as they were unable to pay the
Court Fees, the enhancement as per their entitlement was not
granted. In L. A. R. No. 598 of 2011 additionally Rs. 20,000/- is
to be paid. In L.A.R. No. 600 of 2011 Rs. 80,000/- is to be paid.
8. Learned counsel Mr. Jadhavar for the appellants submits
that once the appellants are held to be entitled for more
compensation, the compensation as per the entitlement should
have been granted subject to payment of deficite Court fees. He
would submit that the Reference Court has committed perversity
and illegality in awarding the compensation to the restricted
claim. He tenders on record the judgment of the Supreme Court
in the matter of Ambya Kalya Mhatra (D) by L.Rs. and others Vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in AIR 2011 SC (SUPP) 625. I have gone through
the paragraph No. 19 of the judgment. He has further referred
to the judgment dated 19.06.2019 of the Coordinate Bench
in the matter of Vasant Laxmanrao Dalal Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and others in F. A. No. 604 of 2012, which inter
6 fa 3681.19 with fa 3682.19
alia refers to the judgment referred above. It is held that the
Reference Court is empowered to award the compensation
notwithstanding the claim is restricted to particular amount by
the claimant, but the same shall be subject to payment of deficit
court fees from the claimant. I find substance in the submissions
of the appellants. Both the appeals deserve to be allowed
because the entitlement for more compensation has already been
recorded by reasoned order of the Reference Court.
9. Learned A. G. P. has made a submission that while
awarding interest U/Sec. 34 of the L. A. Act instead of awarding
it from the date of award, it has been awarded from the date of
notification. He places reliance on the Full Bench judgment of
this Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari
reported in 2016 (4) All MR 513 (F.B.).
10. In the present case the possession of the acquired land was
taken on 26.11.1997, whereas notification U/Sec. 4 of the L. A.
Act was issued on 28.10.1999. The appellants-claimants are
entitled to receive interest from the date of award i. e.
31.03.2003. Reference Court committed patent illegality in
awarding interest from the date of notification. The submission
of the learned A. G. P. has to be accepted.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass following order.
7 fa 3681.19 with fa 3682.19
ORDER
A. Both first appeals are partly allowed.
B. The appellants in First Appeal No. 3681 of 2019 are
entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- and
appellants in First Appeal No. 3682 of 2019 are entitled to
enhanced compensation of Rs. 45,000/-.
C. In both appeals they are entitled to receive interest as
provided by operative para No. 6 of the impugned common
judgment with effect from the date of award i. e.
31.03.2003.
D. Rest of the award is maintained.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]
bsb/Oct. 25
