[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Appasaheb Dynoba Nirwal vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 20 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AUG:2671
1 72-FA.1634-22 & ors (88,92,93).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
72 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1634 OF 2022
VIJAYPRAKASH DWARKADAS RATHI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
AND
88 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1628 OF 2022
VISHNU DWARKADAS RATHI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
AND
92 FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.24083 OF 2021
NARAYAN AMBADAS NIRWAL
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
AND
93 FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.24081 OF 2021
APPASAHEB DYNOBA NIRWAL
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...
Advocate for Appellants in all : Mr. Koralkar Arun H.
AGPs for Respondent/s-State : Mr. N. D. Raje, Mr. S. N. Morampalle, Mr. S. V.
Hange, respectively.
Advocate for Respondent/Acquiring Body : Mr. Chawre Anand, Mr. S. G.
Sangle, Mrs. S. G. Chincholkar, Mr. S. G. Bhalerao, respectively.
...
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 20.01.2026
FINAL ORDER :-
1. Heard both sides finally at the admission stage with consent of the
parties.
1/5
2 72-FA.1634-22 & ors (88,92,93).odt
2. Appellants are questioning the judgment and award passed by the
Reference Court. Their predominant grievance is that benefit of escalation
with cumulative effect has been denied which is discriminatory. Reliance is
also placed on the consistent view taken by this Court. One such a judgment
passed in First Appeal No.2259 of 2021 is placed on record. Appeals are
contested by the respondents. It is submitted that ground of parity is not
attracted in the present appeals. Reference Court has granted adequate
compensation and appeals are liable to be dismissed.
3. Following are the material particulars in the present first appeals :
Sr. First Appeal L.A.R. No. Gut Total U/sec.4 U/sec.11 SLAO rate Reference Type of land reference court awarded
No. No. No. Acquire notification Award date per R as Court
d Area date per Award enhanced
rate per R Jirayat Semi Irrigated Pot
Irrigated kharab
72 1634/2022 309/2011 38/A 02 H. 11.07.2002 11.02.2006 Rs.850/- 02 H. 00 H. - 00 H.
34 R. per R. for Rs.2,500/- 15 R. 13 R. 06 R.
dry per R. for
Rs.1307/- Jirayat
per R. for land
Semi-
Irrigated
Rs.3,750/-
88 1628/2022 312/2011 38/B 02 H. 11.07.2002 11.02.2006 per R. for 02 H. 00 H. - 00 H.
34 R. Semi 01 R. 27 R. 06 R.
92 24083/2021 374/2014 7/1 03 H. 11.07.2002 11.02.2006 Rs.850/- Irrigated 03 H. 03
Stamp 03 R. per R. for R.
dry
Rs.1268/- Rs.5,000/-
per R. for per R. for
Semi- Irrigated
Irrigated
93 24081/2021 373/2014 4/A 03 H. 11.07.2002 11.02.2006 Rs.800/- Rs.1,250/- 02 H. 93 00H.
Stamp 10 R. per R. for per R. for R. 17 R
dry Pot Kharab
Rs.1211/- land
per R. for
Semi-
Irrigated
4. In First Appeal No.1634 of 2022 Civil Application No.795 of 2026 is
filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC seeking permission to lead additional
2/5
3 72-FA.1634-22 & ors (88,92,93).odt
evidence. It is tried to be contended that 2 H. 15 R. acquired from Gut
No.38/A was treated to be dry land which is illegality. The documentary
evidence is solicited to be produced on record disclosing the source of water
and the correspondence showing water connection for fetching water from
riverbed was sanctioned and installed.
5. Application is contested by the respondents contending that those are
disputed questions of fact and the material was available.
6. Mere showing source of water is not sufficient in the matter. The crop
pattern is also decisive factor. 13R. of land from self-same Gut number is
treated to be semi irrigated land. The documents could have been produced
before the Reference Court. I am not inclined to grant permission for the
additional evidence. The classification of the land by the Reference Court
cannot be interfered with.
7. The lands from all appeals are from village Mapegaon and those are
acquired for Nimna Dudhana Project. The notification under Section 4 was
issued on 11.07.2002. The classification upheld by the Reference Court has
not been challenged by the respondents. The Reference Court enhanced the
compensation by awarding rate of Rs.2500/- per R. for dry land, 3750/- per
R. for semi irrigated and Rs.1250/- per R. for Pot Kharab, but the benefit of
escalation for six years has been denied without assigning any reasons. This
Court has been taking consistent view in extending the benefit of escalation
by cumulative effect.
3/5
4 72-FA.1634-22 & ors (88,92,93).odt
8. In case of acquisition of land from self-same village, this Court had
occasion to award rate of Rs.4,426/- per R. for dry land considering
escalation vide judgment dated 14.11.2025 passed in First Appeal No.2259
of 2021. Present appeals are squarely covered by the judgment. Appellants
are entitled to get enhancement as Rs.4,426/- per R. for dry land, Rs.2,213/-
per R. for Pot Kharab land and Rs.6,639/- per R. for semi irrigated land. I,
therefore, pass following order :
ORDER
(i) First appeals are allowed partly.
(ii) The appellants shall be entitled to receive rate of Rs.4,426/- per
R. for dry land, Rs.2,213/- per R. for Pot Kharab land and
Rs.6,639/- per R. for semi irrigated land as the case may be.
(iii) The appellants shall not be entitled to interest and statutory
benefits for the delayed period.
(iv) The appellants shall be entitled to interest under Section 28 and
34 from the date of award as per law laid down in the judgment
of Full Bench in case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva
Rangari [2016 AIR (Bom.) 141].
(v) Save and except above modification. Impugned judgment and
award passed by Reference Court shall stand unaltered.
(vi) The appellants shall pay deficit court fees, if any.
5 72-FA.1634-22 & ors (88,92,93).odt
(vii) Record and proceeding be sent back to the concerned Court, if
any.
(viii) Award be drawn accordingly.
(SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)
...
vmk/-
