[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Kantabai Venkat Raut. vs The State Of Maharashtra Through The ... on 20 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:3055
954-fa-1591-2014
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1591 OF 2014
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Osmanabad
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
Manjra Project, Osmanabad.
3. The Executive Engineer
Rehabilitation Integrated Unit
Osmanabad.
.....APPELLANTS
(Ori. Respondents)
VERSUS
1. Kantabai Venkat Raut
Age Adult, Occu. Agri.,
R/o Kavatha, Tq. Omerga,
Dist. Osmanabad.
.....RESPONDENT
(Ori. Claimant)
_____________________________________________________________
Mr. S. B. Jadhav, AGP for Appellant
Mr. V. V. Ingale, Advocate for Respondent
_____________________________________________________________
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 16 OF 2026
IN FA/1591/2014
Kantabai Venkat Raut
Age 80 years, Occu. Agri. & H. H.,
R/o Kavatha, Tq. Omerga,
Dist. Osmanabad.
.....APPLICANT
(Ori. Res. In F.A.)
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Osmanabad
954-fa-1591-2014
-2-
2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer
Manjra Project, Osmanabad.
Dist: Osmanabad
3. The Executive Engineer
Rehabilitation Integrated Unit
Osmanabad, District Osmanabad
.....RESPONDENTS
(Ori. Appellants)
_____________________________________________________________
Mr. V. V. Ingale, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. S. B. Jadhav, AGP for Respondent-State
_____________________________________________________________
CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
DATED : 20TH JANUARY, 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard the learned AGP for the State and the learned counsel
for the claimant.
2. The First appeal is filed by the State and its authorities
against the common judgment and award dated 03.05.2008, passed
by the learned Land Reference Court, Omerga, District Osmanabad, in
Land Acquisition Reference No.100 of 2005 (Old no.228 of 1997),
whereas the cross-objection is filed by the original claimant raising the
grievance that inadequate compensation has been awarded to her.
3. The learned AGP for the appellants in the First Appeal
No.1591 of 2014 submitted that considering the quality and the
market price of the acquired land, the compensation awarded by the
learned Reference Court is exorbitant. He also strongly opposed the
954-fa-1591-2014
cross-objection filed by the claimant. He, therefore, prayed to allow
the first appeal filed by the State and set aside the impugned
judgment and award and to dismiss the cross-objection filed by the
claimant.
4. The learned counsel for the claimant pointed out the
judgment delivered by this Court on 24.11.2025, in First Appeal
No.277 of 2013 (The State of Maharashtra and others Vs. Santosh
Vishnu Dhumal) and other connected matters, by which the amount
of compensation was enhanced upto Rs.25/- per square foot and by
deducting Rs.5/- per square foot towards the development charges,
finally Rs.20/- per square foot was awarded for the acquired lands of
the claimants.
5. Perused the record and proceedings, particularly, the
impugned judgment and award and evidence on record.
6. It would be proper to reproduce paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of
the judgment and award passed by this Court on 24.09.2025 in First
Appeal No.766 of 2013, (Manohar Kedari Sawant Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and another), which reads as under:-
"4. The learned AGP vehemently opposed this
appeal. She submits that the said acquiescence was only
for the LAR No. 311/2005 and it cannot be generalized.
Every land is distinct and the situation is also different.
In the present case, she submits that the learned trial
Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence and has
954-fa-1591-2014
awarded the rate. The learned SLAO, in fact, had
considered all the relevant factors and had granted the
rate by considering the rate to be Rs.42,000/- hectare
that comes to Rs.10,000/- per Acre. She thus prays for
rejection of the appeal.
5. This Court has gone through the judgment
and award. It is seen that there was sale instance
produced on record at Exh. 34 where the land
consideration was shown to be Rs.25 per R., that would
come nearly to Rs.25 per sq. foot. This Court finds that
even if that sale deed is accepted, it is clear that when
the land compensation is claimed in the unit of per sq.
foot. It shows that there is N.A. potentiality, and
therefore the said deduction is required to be made. If
that deduction is made the rate would come to Rs. 20
pr sq. foot. and that rate is already accepted by the
Government. This Court, therefore, does not find any
difficulty in accepting the rate to be Rs. 20 per sq. foot."
7. From the above judgment of this Court, it is crystal clear
that the claimant's land in the present appeal is situated in one and
the same village and acquired for one and the same project as that
acquired in First Appeal No.766 of 2013 and has N.A. potentialities as
the acquired land is situated near the Highway and thus this is
commercial property. The claimant got compensation @ Rs.4/- per
square foot though her land has N.A. potentiality. The impugned
judgment and award is thus not legal. Therefore, the claimant is
entitled to an enhanced amount of compensation. Therefore, the
claimant is entitled for the compensation at the rate of Rs.25/- per
square foot as enhanced amount of compensation alongwith other
954-fa-1591-2014
benefits by applying principle of parity. However, it is clarified that
already in First Appeal No.766 of 2013, Rs.5/- per square foot was
deducted towards the development charges. Thus, the claimant is
entitled to Rs.20/- per square foot as compensation for her acquired
land. With this, this Court finds that there is no substance in the
grounds of objections in the first appeal. The first appeal filed by the
State deserves to be dismissed. The cross-objection filed by the
claimant deserves to be party allowed on the principle of parity by
partly setting aside the impugned judgment and award. Hence, the
following order:-
ORDER
I. The first appeal is dismissed.
II. The cross-objection is allowed. The impugned
judgment and award is partly set aside and modified as
under:
III. The claimant is entitled to receive
compensation @ Rs.20/- per sq. ft. without any
deduction for development charges.
IV. The claimant is also entitled to receive the
additional statutory benefits i.e. solatium, interest and
other components as provided in the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894.
V. If the delay is condoned by this Court while
entertaining the cross-objection, the claimant is not
entitled to interest amount and other statutory benefits
for the said period.
954-fa-1591-2014
VI. The respondent-Acquiring Authority shall
deposit the enhanced amount of compensation in this
Court within eight weeks from today with interest
accrued thereon.
VII. Pending civil applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
(SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.)
Rushikesh/2025
