Bombay High Court

THE STATE OF MAH AND ORSversusBABURAO PANDURANG PAWAR AND ANR

Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The appeal is dismissed, upholding the enhanced compensation and statutory benefits awarded by the Reference Court.

Summary

The State of Maharashtra appealed a 2008 award that enhanced compensation and granted statutory benefits to Baburao Pandurang Pawar under the Land Acquisition Act. The State argued that the enhancement lacked material support, the comparable sale used was inappropriate, and the statutory benefits imposed an illegal burden on the exchequer. The High Court examined the evidence, found that the comparable sale was from the same village and that the Reference Court correctly adjusted market value, citing Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal for permissible market‑value estimation. It also held that the enhancement fell within the limits of a government resolution and that the solatium, additional percentage, and interest awarded under Sections 23(2), 23(1‑A), 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act were lawful, following State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari. Consequently, the Court found no illegality or perversity in the award and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the enhancement of compensation granted by the Reference Court should be quashed.
Whether the statutory benefits (solatium, additional percentage, interest) awarded are in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 23(1-A), 23(2), 28, 34

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation enhancement
solatium
market value determination
statutory benefits
appeal dismissed
public exchequer

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:26297

925-FA-2275-2013.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
925 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2275 OF 2013

The State Of Mah And Ors
VERSUS
Baburao Pandurang Pawar And Anr

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10179 OF 2010
IN FA/2275/2013

The State Of Mah And Ors
VERSUS
Baburao Pandurang Pawar And Anr

...
Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP Appellant/State.
Mr. Balasaheb Pawar for the Respondents (Absent).
…

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 25 JUNE 2026

P. C.:

1. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant.

2. By the present Appeal, the Appellants/State assail the judgment and

award dated 24th November 2008, passed by learned Jt. Civil Judge Senior

Division, Omerga in LAR No.830 of 2005 whereby the Reference Court

granted enhanced compensation to the Respondents/Claimants along with

other consequential benefits.

3. Mr. Korde, leaned AGP for the Appellant/State submits that the

Reference Court committed apparent error in enhancing the compensation

Shubham Page 1 of 4
925-FA-2275-2013.doc

which was not supported by adequate material. The SLAO had undertaken

due procedure of law and appropriate inspection along with joint

measurement was carried out before arriving at market value. The

comparable sale instance relied upon by the Respondent/Claimant is

incompatible. He further submits that considering the location and potential

of land under acquisition, the Reference Court has grossly erred in

enhancing the compensation. The Reference Court further committed error

in granting statutory benefit of solatium, additional component and interest.

Such enhancement has caused illegal burden on the public exchequer.

Therefore, he prays that the impugned award be set aside.

4. None appears for the Respondents.

5. Upon considering the rival submissions, the following points for

determination arose for reaching the conclusion:

I. Whether the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is liable to

be quashed?

II. Whether the statutory benefits extended by the Reference Court are in

accordance with law?

The record reveals that the Respondent/Claimant has adduced oral as

well as documentary evidence whereas the Appellant/State has not adduced

either oral or documentary evidence.

6. As to point No.I :-

The Respondent/Claimant has produced on record comparable sale

Shubham Page 2 of 4
925-FA-2275-2013.doc

instance as sale deeds at Exh.35. The land in the said sale instance was from

the same village as that of the land acquired in the present matter.

Therefore, the learned Reference Court has rightly relied on the market

value of the land in the said sale instance. The Reference Court has also

considered reasonable increase in the market value after the date of

execution of comparable sale instance till the passing of the impugned

award by the SLAO.

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Trishala Jain Vs. State of Uttaranchal (AIR

2011 SC 2458) has held that it is permissible to guess fixation of probable

market value, which has been rightly followed by the Reference Court. The

Appellant/State has failed to make out any case for interference in fixing

rate which is reasonable and akin to the market value at the relevant time.

8. It is noticed that enhancement granted by Reference Court is within

four times than that of SLAO. Therefore, the matter is covered by

Government Resolution No.Sankirna-2014/Prak.Kra.4/Bham-1/A-4 dated 3 rd

November 2016 with Corrigendum dated 23rd February 2017 and 13th

August 2018 to the said Government Resolution. On that count also the

enhancement needs to be upheld. Based on the above discussion I do not

find any illegality in the enhancement of compensation by the Reference

Court. Hence, I answer Point No.I in negative.

9. As to Point No.II:-

The claimants have been granted statutory benefit such as 30%

Shubham Page 3 of 4
925-FA-2275-2013.doc

solatium under Section 23(2), 12% increase under Section 23(1-A), interest

under Section 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 at the

appropriate rate. The issue of interest is no more a res integra and is already

covered the law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in State of

Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari (2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457). Hence, no

case is made out by the Appellant to show any fault or illegality in awarding

statutory benefits and the interest. Hence, I answer Point No.II in negative.

10. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any perversity or illegality

in the impugned judgment and award. Hence, I pass the following order:-

ORDER

i. First Appeal is dismissed.

ii. No order as to costs.

iii. The amount of compensation receivable under Section 34 of the

Land Acquisition Act be calculated from the date of award passed

by Land Acquisition Officer as enunciated by Full Bench of this

Court in Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra).

iv. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

[SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]

Shubham Page 4 of 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…