[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Sunil S/O Santoshrao Shende vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 8 April, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:5559
1 19B) FA 120-2015-J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO. 120 OF 2015
Sunil S/o. Santoshrao Shende,
Aged about 46 years,
Occupation: Agriculturist,
R/o. Nimboli, Tahasil Arvi,
Dist. Wardha. ... Appellant
.. Versus ..
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through District Collector,
Wardha
2. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer,
Lower Wardha Project, Wardha
3. Executive Engineer,
Lower Wardha Project Division,
Wardha ... Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri V.S.Kukday, Advocate for Appellant.
Shri B.M.Lonare, AGP for Respondent/State.
Shri M.A. Kadu, Advocate for Respondent no. 3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 30/03/2026
DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 08/04/2026
JUDGMENT
This is an Appeal under Section 54 of the Land
2 19B) FA 120-2015-J.odt
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, 'L.A.Act') by the Claimant
being not satisfied with the judgment and award dated
29/10/2014 passed by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Wardha in Land Reference/LAC No. 198/2008,
awarding total compensation of Rs. 69,090/- towards the
acquisition of land admeasuring 0.94 HR, out of Survey No. 81
and 82, situated at village Nimboli, Tq. Arvi, District Wardha for
the submergence in Lower Wardha Project (Nimna Wardha
Prakalpa).
2. The Claimant preferred the above referred Reference
Application with the contention that, Notification under Section 4
of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 05/11/1998 and the
award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO)
on 29/11/2002, determining the compensation @ Rs. 56,500/- per
hectare for the above referred land of the Claimant, and awarded
the total compensation of Rs. 94,931/- inclusive of the statutory
benefits. The Claimant claimed the compensation @ Rs.
1,00,000/- per acre. The Claimant examined himself and brought
on record the Index No.-II in respect of one sale transaction out
of village Karmabad, Tq. Arvi, District Wardha and other
3 19B) FA 120-2015-J.odt
relevant documents such as award etc. The Reference
Application was contested by the Respondent(s) by filing Written
Statement and reply at Exh. 15 and 17 respectively. Considering
the evidence on record, the learned Reference Court passed the
above referred judgment and award.
3. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and the
learned counsel for the Acquiring Body. Perused the papers on
record.
(a) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
Appellant that, though the sale instance brought on record by the
Appellant showing the rate of Rs. 2,50,000/- per hectare and
considered by the learned Reference Court, the compensation
was awarded @ Rs. 1,30,000/- per hectare. The Appellant
deposed that, his land was irrigated. The subject matter of the
Appeal was covered by the earlier decisions in Vidarbha
Irrigation Development Corporation, Wardha V/s. Vikram
Laxmanrao Deshmukh and ors. {2020(1) Mh.L.J. 931} and
Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, Wardha V/s.
Kishore Vishwasrao Shirpurkar and ors. {Judgment of this
Court in First Appeal No. 244/2014, decided on June 30, 2025}.
4 19B) FA 120-2015-J.odt
The learned counsel further submits that, the Appeal be allowed
in terms of above referred judgments.
(b) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
Acquiring Body that, the distance between the acquired land and
the land which was the subject mater of the sale instance relied
upon by the Claimant was 4 Km. This was accepted in the
cross-examination. There is no evidence to show that, the
acquired land was irrigated land. Only oral evidence is led that,
the acquired land was irrigated. No case for enhancement is
made out. He relied on the judgment in Manoj Kumar and ors.
V/s. State of Haryana and others {(2018) 13 SCC 96}.
4. In VIDC V/s. Vikram (supra), the land from village
Borgaon Hatla admeasuring 12.92 HR was acquired for the same
project. Notification under Section 4 of the L.A.Act was issued
on 15/01/1999 and the award was passed on 25/02/2003,
determining the rate of Rs. 37,500/- per hectare. In the
Reference, the learned Reference Court determined the
compensation @ Rs. 3,50,000/- per acre. This Court in the
Appeal brought down the compensation @ Rs. 2,50,000/- per
5 19B) FA 120-2015-J.odt
hectare on the ground that, the sale instance considered by the
learned Reference Court was post Notification and discarded the
sale instance prior to Notification. In VIDC V/s. Kishore (supra),
the land situated at Mouze Borgaon (Hatala), Tah. Arvi, District
Wardha was acquired for the same project. Notification under
Section 4 of the L.A.Act was issued on 15/01/1999 and the award
was passed on 25/02/2003, granting compensation of
Rs. 50,500/- per hectare. The learned Reference Court enhanced
the compensation. This Court relying on the said decision in
VIDC V/s. Vikram (supra) determined the compensation @
Rs. 2,50,000/- per hectare.
5. In Manoj Kumar (supra), it is observed that, the
determination of compensation in each case depends upon the
nature of land and the evidence adduced therein. It may be that
better evidence has been adduced in the later case regarding the
actual value of property including subsequent sale deeds
executed after the award and before the preliminary notification
under Section 4 are also to be considered, if filed. The awards
and judgments in the cases involving others, not being inter
partes, are not binding precedents. The previous
6 19B) FA 120-2015-J.odt
awards/judgments are the only piece of evidence, on par with
comparative sale transactions. To base the determination of
compensation on a previous award/judgment, the evidence
considered in the previous judgment/award and its acceptability
on judicial parameters must necessarily be examined, otherwise,
gross injustice may be caused to either parties.
6. Though it is submitted by the learned counsel for the
Appellant that, the Appellant in his evidence deposed that, the
acquired land was irrigated, there is no other evidence to support
the said contention of the Appellant. The final 'M' Statement
below Exh. 4 and the final award, do not show the well and/or
pipeline in the Appellant's acquired land. The learned Reference
Court observed that, the acquired land was undisputedly the 'Dry
Crop Land'. The learned Reference Court further observed that,
it is not established by the Claimant as to whether the land which
was the subject matter of the sale instance, wherein the rate was
Rs. 2,50,000/- per hectare, was the 'Dry Crop Land'. In absence
of any material on record to show that, the Appellant's acquired
land was the irrigated land, no fault can be found with the
observations of the learned Reference Court that, the Appellant's
7 19B) FA 120-2015-J.odt
acquired land was the "Dry Crop Land". Considering the land
which was the subject matter of the sale instance as irrigated, the
learned Reference Court observed that, one-half of the rate for
Dry Crop Land was to be awarded and having regard to the date
of Section 4 Notification, determined the rate at Rs. 1,30,000/-
per hectare.
7. In the above referred two (2) decisions relied upon
by the learned counsel for the Appellant, the acquisition was for
the same project i.e. Lower Wardha Project and the rate per
hectare was brought down to Rs. 2,50,000/- in the Appeals
preferred by the Acquiring Body. Perusal of the said judgments,
show that, the lands therein were situated in another village
named Borgaon Hatala. Perusal of copy of Appeal Memo in
VIDC V/s. Kishore (supra), shows that, there is nothing to show
that, the said lands which were the subject matter of the aforesaid
two (2) Appeals were Dry Crop Land. A copy of Appeal Memo in
First Appeal No. 512/2015 (Kishore S/o. Vishwasrao
Shirpurkar V/s. State of Maharashtra and ors.), which is
tendered across the Bar by the learned counsel for the Appellant
shows that, the said Appeal was out of the judgment and order
8 19B) FA 120-2015-J.odt
dated 21/12/2012 passed by the learned Reference Court in
Reference No. 74/2007, in which it was the contention that, the
land therein was the best available land and not a Koradwahu
land (not 'Dry Crop Land') .... The Appeal as seen from the
order dated 30/06/2025 was withdrawn. The judgment in VIDC
V/s. Kishore (supra) was preferred by the Acquiring Body
against the very same judgment and order dated 21/12/2012 in
LAC No. 74/2007, wherein the rate was brought down to Rs.
2,50,000/- per hectare. It goes to show that, the land which was
the subject matter of the said Appeal was not the Dry Crop Land.
The judgment in the said Appeal was based on the above referred
judgment in VIDC V/s. Vikram (supra). Thus, the said decision,
which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the Appellant will
not be of any assistance in the present Appeal, wherein the
learned Reference Court has appropriately granted one half rate
for the Dry Crop Land. The observations made by the learned
Reference Court are based on evidence on record and no
interference is called for in the judgment and award passed by the
learned Reference Court. The Appeal fails. Hence, the following
order:-
9 19B) FA 120-2015-J.odt
ORDER
i) The Appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
ii) R & P be sent back to the learned Reference Court.
[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]
B.T.K.
Signed by: Mr. B.T. Khapekar
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 08/04/2026 20:16:46
