Full Judgment Text
2026:BHC-NAG:2746
1/7 22-fa 515-15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
FIRST APPEAL NO.515 OF 2015
Prakash Vasudev Toney, Aged
about 60 years, Occup.
Agriculturist, R/o At present
Dahiwalkar Layout,Near Datey
college Yavatmal District.
Yavatmal.
APPELLANT:
(ON R.A.).
-Versus-
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through the Collector,
Yavatmal.
2. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Bembla Project,
Yavatmal
3 The Executive Engineer,
Bembla Project, Yavatmal.
R ESPONDENTS
(ON R.A.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.S.V.Ingole, counsel for Appellant.
Ms.Sneha Dhote, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
Mr.M.A.Kadu counsel for respondent No.3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
DATED : 17.02.2026.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1)
This is an Appeal under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short LA Act) by the claimant for
enhanced compensation. The Appellant’s land out of gat
No. 2/2 and 29/2 situated at village Nagargaon Tq.
Kavita .
2/7 22-fa 515-15
Babhulgaon, District Yavatmal to the extent of 02 H
02R,01H 56R and 2H 84R totalling 3H 58R came to be
acquired for submergence in the Bembla project. The
Section 4 Notification was issued on 31.12.1998 and the
Award came to be passed by the SLAO on 27.02.2001. The
Appellant was granted the rate of Rs.62,711/- per Hectare
for the land in Gat No.2/2 and Rs.66,718/- per Hectare for
the land in Gat No.29/2. The Compensation towards the
well and the trees were also granted.
2) The Appellant filed the Reference Application
No.556 of 2005. The Appellant led the necessary evidence.
No evidence was led by the Respondents. The learned
Reference Court by the Judgment and Award dated
21.10.2011 enhanced the rate of compensation and
determined the compensation @ Rs.1,35,000/- per Hectare
towards the aforesaid acquired lands of the Appellant by
considering the land as dry crop land. The compensation
towards the well also came to be enhanced.
3)
It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the
Appellant that, though there was evidence on record to
Kavita .
3/7 22-fa 515-15
show that, there was well in both the gat numbers, the
learned Reference Court considered the acquired land as dry
land. It is submitted that, since the evidence on record
clearly show that, the acquired lands were perennially
irrigated land, the compensation for the irrigated land
should have been granted. He submitted that, the Appeal
be allowed.
4)
It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the
acquiring body that, though there is evidence to show the
well, the Appellant did not place on record the evidence to
show that, there was pipe line and the bills towards the
electricity to show that, the land was perennially irrigated
land. He submitted that, on the basis of the material on
record the learned Reference Court has rightly considered
the acquired land as dry land hence no interference is called
for.
5) With the assistance of both the sides, perused the
papers on record. Undisputedly, the SLAO granted the
compensation for well in both the gat numbers. The learned
Reference Court has enhanced the compensation towards
Kavita .
4/7 22-fa 515-15
the well in both the gat numbers. The Appellant examined
himself and placed on record 7/12 extracts of both the
lands. The learned Reference Court observed that, only for
some years i.e. 1992-93, 1996-97 and 1994-95 the crops
like wheat and gram were taken in the acquired land and
further observed that, for the other years there are entries
for the crop like cotton, jawar, tur, which are the dry and
rainy crops and therefore, considered the acquired land as
dry land. The relevant observation from the impugned
judgment from para 14 and 15 are reproduced below:
14. By filing this reference, petitioner is
claiming enhance compensation treatment his
land as irrigated land. However, LAO has not
granted compensation treating acquired land
as irrigated land. He has granted
compensation of dry land and well situated in
both the gat numbers. Therefore at this stage,
we have to see whether the acquired land of
petitioner is irrigated or dry crop land.
Petitioner Prakash in his evidence deposed
that the acquired lands were fully irrigated
lands, water source was available because
there were well situated in both the lands.
15. However, during the course of his
cross examination he has admitted that he has
not filed any document about construction
and age of the well. He further admit that he
has not filed any certificate of any gazette
officer to show that there was perennial water
Kavita .
5/7 22-fa 515-15
to the well. The above admissions of the
witness show that there was really water
source was available to the acquired land for
irrigation. Apart from this oral evidence,
petitioner Prakash placed his reliance on 7/12
extract at Exh.22 and 23 and stated that since
1992-93 he used to cultivate wheat crop and
gram crop in gat No.2/2 and in the year
1996-97 he used to take wheat crop in gat
No.2/2. He further stated that in 1994-95 he
used to take wheat crop in gat No.29/2
therefore his lands were irrigated lands. In my
view, the entry regarding 7/12 extract is not
conclusive proof. These entries can be
rebutted by adducing evidence. For the sake
of argument it is presume that the applicant
used to take crops like wheat and gram, but
entry regarding those crops are shown only in
the year 1992-93, 1996-97 and 1994-95.
Except these entries, the entry regarding
taken of crops like wheat and gram is not
shown for other years hence the entry
showing in the year 1992-93, 1996-97 and
1994-95 cannot be said that the land of
applicant was irrigated land as he has not
taken those crops continuously since
beginning. The 7/12 extract show that he
continuously took crops like cotton, jawar, tur
and these crops are dry and rainy crops.
Therefore, contention of petitioner regarding
irrigated land is not taken into consideration
and hold that both the lands of petitioner is
dry crop land”.
6) The above observations, which are based on the
evidence available on record clearly show that, for some
years the crops for irrigated land were cultivated. The
Kavita .
6/7 22-fa 515-15
observations made by the learned Reference Court goes to
show that, though the acquired land was not perennially
irrigated land, it was the seasonal irrigated land. This is the
reasonable inference, which emanates from the material
available on record and considered by the learned Reference
Court. Thus, the contention of the learned Advocate that
the acquired land were perennially irrigated land cannot be
accepted. The award passed by the learned Reference
Court, therefore, is modified to the extent that, the
Appellant would be entitled for the compensation for the
seasonally irrigated land. As there is no Appeal by the
acquiring body, rate of Rs.1,35,000/- per Hectare for the
dry land has attained the finality. Considering this rate for
the dry crop land, the Appellant would be entitled for the
rate of Rs.2,02,500/- towards the seasonally irrigated land.
The rest of the Award needs no interference. The impugned
award therefore stands modified to the above extent with no
orders as to costs.
7)
The Appellant shall not be entitled for the interest for
the delayed period from 21.10.2011 to 07.04.2015. The
Kavita .
7/7 22-fa 515-15
Record and Proceedings be sent back to the learned
Reference Court. The acquiring body is expected to deposit
the amount towards the enhanced compensation within a
period of four (4) months.
8)
The First Appeal stands disposed of.
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
( )
Signed by: Kavita P Tayade
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 17/02/2026 18:39:28
Kavita .