Shrirang S/O. Damodhar Ghodke. v. The State Of Maharashtra Through The Dist. Collector, Parbhani And ORS.

2026:BHC-AUG:21303 ( 1 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 18 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4408 OF 2026 IN FAST/9042/2026 SHRIRANG S/O. DAMODHAR GHODKE.

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE DIST. COLLECTOR, PARBHANI AND ORS.

...

Advocate for applicant : Mr. Vitthal D. Bhise and Mrs. Shital S. Adkine Advocate for Acquiring Body : Mr. B.R. Survase AGP for respondent - State : Mrs. P.V. Diggikar ...

CORAM

: SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

DATE : 06 MAY 2026 PER COURT :- Civil Application for Condonation of Delay Heard both sides.

2.

The applicants are seeking condonation of delay of 6910 days in preferring the First Appeal.

3.

The application is contested by the respondents. 4.

Considering the contentions in the application, I find no mala fide on the part of the applicants in preferring the Appeal belatedly.

( 2 ) 5.

In view of the consistent view taken by this Court, appellants are ready to give up the interest and statutory benefits for the delayed period. 6.

Delay stands condoned. Civil Application No. 4408 of 2026 is allowed.

FIRST APPEAL 7.

Appellants are challenging judgment and award dated 09.01.2007 passed in LAR No. 3 of 2006. They are claiming enhancement of the compensation and the benefit of escalation on the ground of parity. For that purpose, reliance is placed on consistent view being taken by this Court in numerous matters. One such elaborate judgment is passed in the matter of Pralhad Annasaheb Nirwal vs. State of Maharashtra and others in First Appeal No.1778 of 2024 with connected matters on 11.12.2025. 8.

Learned counsel for the respondents would oppose the submissions. It is submitted that the ground of parity is not attracted in the appeal. Appellants have failed to make a case for enhancement and the appeal is liable to be rejected.

9.

In the present case, the land from village Pimpri (Kh.), Taluka Sailu, District - Parbhani has been acquired for 'Nimna Dudhana' project. The

( 3 ) land has been classified as Dry land. The classification has not been disputed by both the parties. The notification under Section 4 was issued on 16.02.2001 which is relevant for determining the escalation. 10.

Following are the material particular of the appeal : FAST No.

LAR No.

Gut No.

Total Acquire Notification Award u/s.

SLAO rate Ld.

Reference Type of land Ld. Reference u/s.4 11 date as per award Court awarded d area Court enhanced rate per R Jirayat Semi irrigat Irrig ated Pot kharab ed 9042/2026 3/2006 1 H 33 R 16.02.2001 04.09.2004 650/- 1000/- 1 H 33 R -- -- -- 11.

This Court has taken consistent view in the matter of acquisitions of lands from cluster of villages for 'Nimna Dudhana' project. After considering all aspects of the matter, rate of Rs.2,500/- per Are for Jirayat land Rs.3,750/ per Are for Semi irrigated land, Rs.5,000/- for per Are irrigated land and Rs.1,250/- per Are for pot kharab land have been arrived at. The benefit of escalation has also been granted in numerous cases. Present case is squarely covered by one such common judgment of Pralhad Annasaheb Nirwal (supra). Appellants are entitled to receive rate of Rs.3,982/- per Are for dry land and escalation at the rate of 1338710% per annum. The payment of interest shall be governed by the decision of full bench in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari [2016 AIR (Bom.)141]. I, therefore, pass following order :

( 4 )

O R D E R

a.

First Appeal is allowed partly.

b.

The appellants shall be entitled to receive rate of Rs.3,982/- per Are for Dry land.

c.

The appellants shall not be entitled to the interest and statutory benefits for the delayed period.

d.

The appellants shall be entitled to the interest under Section 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as per full bench judgment of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari [2016 AIR (Bom.)141].

e.

Save and except above modification, the impugned judgment and award shall stand unaltered.

f.

Record and Proceeding be sent back to the Reference Court.

g.

The appellants shall pay deficit court fees.

h.

Award be drawn accordingly.

( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ) arp/-