[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Executive Engineer (V.I.D.C.) Medium ... vs Rameshwar S/O Punjabrao Gotmare And 2 ... on 19 January, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:901
17.fa.290.15-J.doc 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
FIRST APPEAL NO.290 OF 2015
Executive Engineer (V.O.D.C.),
Medium Project Division,
Civil Lines, Nagpur. ---APPELLANT
---VERSUS---
1. Rameshwar Punjabrao Gotmare (Dead)
Through its Legal Heirs.
1(a) Nalini Wd/o. Rameshwar Gotmare,
Aged about 60 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Bajiprabhu Nagar, Nagpur.
1(b) Kanchan Prashant Kale,
Aged about 37 years, Occ. Housewife,
R/o. Ambazari, Nagpur.
1(c) Bhagyashree Prithviraj Mulik,
Aged about 33 years, Occ. Household,
R/o. Rahate Colony, Nagpur.
1(d) Nitin Rameshwar Gotmare,
Aged about 28 years, Occ. Business,
R/o. Bajiprabhu Nagar, Nagpur.
2. State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Wardha.
3. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Minor Irrigation Works, Wardha. ----RESPONDENTS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. J. B. Kasat, Advocate for Appellant.
Mr. C. R. Najbile, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(d).
Ms. S. S. Dhote, Advocate for Respondents/State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
DATE : 19.01.2026.
17.fa.290.15-J.doc 2/4
ORAL JUDGMENT
. Heard the learned Advocate for the Appellant - Acquiring Body,
the learned Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(d), who are the
legal representatives of the Original Claimants and learned A.P.P. for the
Respondents/State.
2. This is an Appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (for short, "L.A.Act") preferred by the Appellant - Acquiring Body
against the Judgment and Award dated 12.04.2013 passed by the learned
Reference Court in L.A.C. No.55/2001 granting compensation towards the
trees in favour of the Claimants. The Operative Order of the said Judgment
reads as under :
"1) The reference of the applicant is partly allowed with
proportionate costs.
2) The non-applicants shall pay the compensation to the
applicant for 274 orange trees at the rate of Rs. 5,500/- per
tree, for 482 orange trees at the rate of 4500/- per tree, for 10
orange trees at the rate of 500/- per tree and for 28 orange
trees at the rate of Rs. 200/- per tree and for group of 4 Ber
trees at the rate of Rs.1500/- per trees.
3) Non-applicants shall pay the enhanced compensation of
Rs.59255/- to the applicant for rest of the 101 trees.
4) The non-applicants shall also pay 30% Solatium on the
enhanced amount as per section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act
to the applicant.
5) The non-applicants shall also pay component @ Rs. 12%
per annum to the applicant on the total amount from the date
of publication of the notification under section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act till the date of passing the award to the
applicants.
6) The compensation amount already paid to the applicant,
shall be deducted from the above said enhanced compensation.
7) The non-applicants shall also pay the interest on the
aforesaid enhanced amount @ 9% per annum from the dated
of notification u/s. 4 of the Act for one year and @ Rs. 15% per
annum for the subsequent years till realisation of the amount
as provided under section 28 of the Acquisition Act to the
applicant.
8) Award be drawn up accordingly."
3. The learned Advocate for the Appellants submits that, the
learned Reference Court has granted excessive compensation though the
Claimants failed to prove their entitlement for the same. He submits that,
the Appeal be allowed.
4. The learned Advocate for the Respondents/Claimants submits
that the land of the Claimants was bearing Khasra No.52, situated at
Bidborgaon, Tahsil Hingna, District Nagpur and the Appeal preferred by the
Acquiring Body against the compensation awarded by the Reference Court
to the adjacent land holder bearing Khasra No.51 came to be dismissed by
this Court in Civil Application No.1494/2013 in First Appeal St.
No.5222/2013 by order dated 06.03.2014 and he submits that in view of
the same, the Appeal be dismissed.
5. On going through the Judgment of the learned Reference Court
and the Order of this Court in the above referred Appeal preferred by the
Acquiring Body against the Award in Reference of the adjacent land owner,
it is clear that, both the Judgments of the learned Reference Court were out
of the same Award and the same Acquisition Proceedings. Further it is
clear that, the same rate for the trees was awarded by the Reference Court
in respect of both the said Khasra numbers. The said Order shows that, the
delay application in the said Appeal preferred by the Acquiring Body/State
was rejected. Resultantly, the Award of the Reference Court therein, was
confirmed. On perusal of the Judgment impugned herein shows that, the
learned Reference Court considered the material on record and granted the
compensation.
6. In view of the above, I do not see any ground to interfere in the
impugned Judgment and Award except to the extent of period for which
interest is awarded by the learned Reference Court, so as to bring it in
consonance with the Judgment of this Court in the case of State of
Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari [ 2016 LawSuit (Bom) 492].
7. The para 7 of the Operative Part of the impugned Judgment
stands modified to the extent that, the interest and the statutory benefits
shall be payable from the date of Award under Section 11 of the L.A.Act.
8. The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
(NEERAJ P. DHOTE J.)
RGurnule
Signed by: Mrs. R.M. MANDADE
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 20/01/2026 19:47:14
