Bombay High Court
THE STATE OF MAH AND ORSversusRAOSAHEB UMAJI KADAM AND ORS
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The enhancement of compensation is upheld, but interest under Section 34 must be recalculated from the award date.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed a 2009 award that enhanced compensation for land acquired from the Kadam family, arguing the increase was unsupported and that statutory benefits were improperly granted. The High Court examined whether the enhancement could be quashed and whether the solatium, increase, and interest awards complied with the Land Acquisition Act. Relying on comparable sales from the same village and a Supreme Court precedent, the Court found the market‑value assessment reasonable and upheld the enhancement. It held that the solatium and increase were correctly awarded, but the interest under Section 34 was wrongly calculated from the notification date. Accordingly, the Court partially allowed the appeal, directing that interest be computed from the date of the award as per the Full Bench decision in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari, and disposed of any pending civil applications.
Issues considered
- Whether the enhancement of compensation granted by the Reference Court is liable to be quashed
- Whether the statutory benefits (solatium, increase, 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
- interest calculation
- statutory benefits
- appellate review
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:26343
926-FA-2344-2013.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
926 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2344 OF 2013
The State Of Mah And Ors
VERSUS
Raosaheb Umaji Kadam And Ors
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11004 OF 2010
IN FA/2344/2013
The State Of Mah And Ors
VERSUS
Raosaheb Umaji Kadam And Ors
...
Mr. S. A. Gaikwad, AGP for the Appellant/State.
Mr. Dattatraya Jayabhar for the Respondents (Absent).
…
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 25 JUNE 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. By the present Appeal, the Appellants/State assail the judgment and
award dated 21st March 2009, passed by learned Principal District Judge,
Beed in LAR No.124 of 2007 whereby the Reference Court granted
enhanced compensation to the Respondents/Claimants along with other
consequential benefits.
3. Mr. Gaikwad, leaned AGP for the Appellant/State submits that the
Reference Court committed apparent error in enhancing the compensation
Shubham Page 1 of 4
926-FA-2344-2013.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 instances 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
926-FA-2344-2013.doc
instances as sale deeds which are of the year in between 1995 and 1998.
The land in the said sale instances were 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 instances.
The Reference Court has also considered reasonable increase in the market
value after the date of execution of comparable sale instances 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
926-FA-2344-2013.doc
solatium under Section 23(2), 12% increase under Section 23(1-A), interest
under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 at the appropriate rate.
The issue regarding grant of interest under Section 34 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).
The learned Reference Court has granted interest under Section 34 from the
date of issuance of notification under Section 4 i.e. 23 rd March 2000 which is
not in accordance with the abovesaid ruling. Hence, no case is made out by
the Appellant to show any fault or illegality in awarding statutory benefits
except with respect to the interest part under Section 34. Hence, I answer
Point No.II partly in affirmative.
10. For the reasons stated above, I am inclined to modify the impugned
judgment and award. Hence, I pass the following order:-
ORDER
i. First Appeal is partly allowed.
ii. 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).
iii. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]
Shubham Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…