Bombay High Court
THE CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION) CENTRAL RAILWAYversusMANCHAKRAO BAIRAM DONE AND ORS
- Disposal
- Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
Holding
The enhancement of compensation to Rs.6,000 per square foot is adequate and the Reference Court's reasoning is sound, so the award stands.
Summary
The Chief Engineer (Construction) of Central Railway sought condonation of a 168‑day delay in filing several first appeals challenging an award that enhanced compensation for land acquired at Harangul village for railway gauge conversion. The acquisition, notified under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 26 September 1995, originally awarded Rs.1,085 per square foot, which the Reference Court later enhanced to Rs.6,000 per square foot. The acquiring body argued that the enhancement was based on guesswork and the Reference Court erred by relying on the original award without proper reasoning, seeking to quash the award. The claimants contended that the sale instances presented were for non‑agricultural land and thus irrelevant, and that the enhancement to Rs.6,000 per square foot was appropriate. The court held that the sale instances indeed pertained to non‑agricultural land, justifying their exclusion, and found the enhancement to Rs.6,000 per square foot to be adequate. Consequently, the court dismissed the first appeals as devoid of merit and did not interfere with the award.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate basis for enhancing compensation under the Land Acquisition Act?
- Whether the Reference Court erred in relying on the original award and discarding sale instances pertaining to non‑agricultural land?
- Whether the enhancement to Rs.6,000 per square foot is legally sufficient?
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation enhancement
- delay condonation
- first appeal
- railway expansion
- agricultural land
- reference court
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:37062-DB
937-CA-4402-2010.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
937 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4402 OF 2010
IN FAST/7742/2010
The Chief Engineer (construction) Central Railway
VERSUS
Manchakrao Bairam Done And Ors
WITH
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 7742 OF 2010
The Chief Engineer (construction) Central Railway
VERSUS
Manchakrao Bairam Done And Ors
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3332 OF 2011
The Chief Engineer (construction) Central Railway
VERSUS
Sau Shantabai Manohar Shinde And Ors
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2335 OF 2014
The Chief Engineer (construction) Central Railway
VERSUS
Amin Dadan Kabade And Ors
...
Mr. Manish Navandar for Applicant.
Mr. Rohit Gunale h/f V. D. Gunale for Respondent No.1.
Mr. AAA Khan, AGP for State.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 6 AUGUST 2026
P. C.:
Civil Application No. 4402 Of 2010 in FAST/7742/2010
1. The present Civil Application is filed for condonation of delay of 168
days in filing First Appeal.
Shubham Page 1 of 4
937-CA-4402-2010.doc
2. Considering the averments made in the Application, the delay is
condoned in terms of prayer clause ‘B’.
First Appeal (St) No. 7742 Of 2010, First Appeal No. 3332 Of 2011 and First
Appeal No.2335 Of 2014
3. These First Appeals are not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on
board.
4. The First Appeal Nos.3332 of 2011 and 2335 of 2014 are already
admitted. As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1995, all the First
Appeals are being heard finally with the consent of learned counsel.
5. The Appellant/acquiring body is assailing the order dated 15 th April
2009, passed by 3rd Jt. CJSD Latur in LAR Nos.132/2007, 275/2004 and
1115/1999 whereby enhanced compensation came to be granted to the
claimants.
6. The land of the claimants at village Harangul (Bk.) Tq. Latur was
acquired for expansion of railway line into broad gauge. The notification
under Section 4 was published on 26th September 1995, award was passed
on 31st January 1999, the SLAO granted compensation @Rs.1085/- per R
which was enhanced by the learned Reference Court to the tune of
Rs.6,000/- per R. The claimants had claimed compensation @Rs.250/- per
sq. ft.
7. The learned counsel for the acquiring body submits that the learned
Reference Court has granted enhancement to the tune of Rs.6000/- per R
Shubham Page 2 of 4
937-CA-4402-2010.doc
only upon guesswork and by relying upon award passed by the LAO which is
filed below Exh.22. The enhancement granted without giving reasons
deserves to be quashed. He further submits that the learned Reference Court
has rightly discarded the sale instances produced below Exhs.31 to 37, but it
erred in relying upon award passed by the LAO while enhancing the
compensation. Therefore, he prays to quash the impugned award.
8. The learned AGP supports the submission of the learned counsel for
the acquiring body.
9. Per contra learned counsel for the claimants submits that the
claimants had filed sale instances below Exhs.31 to 37 but the same were
discarded by the learned Reference Court on the ground that they pertained
to non-agricultural lands whereas the acquired land was agricultural land.
At the same time, learned Reference Court has enhanced the compensation
by relying upon award passed by the LAO thereby enhancing the
compensation to the tune of Rs.6000/- per R which is appropriate. Hence,
he prays to dismiss the First Appeals.
10. Having considered rival submissions of the respective counsel and
upon perusal of record and proceeding it is clear that the sale instances
relied upon by the claimants were pertaining to non-agricultural lands.
Whereas the acquired lands were not converted into non-agricultural lands.
Therefore, the learned Reference Court has rightly discarded the said sale
instances below Exhs.31 to 37. Though the learned Reference Court has
Shubham Page 3 of 4
937-CA-4402-2010.doc
relied upon award passed by the LAO which was produced below Exh.22
wherein the LAO had awarded compensation of Rs.1085/- per R, the
learned Reference Court has enhanced the same to an adequate extent of
Rs.6000/- per R, which in my opinion can be said to be sufficient
enhancement. Thus, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned
award.
11. Hence, the First Appeals being devoid of merits, are dismissed. No
order as to costs.
12. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]
Shubham Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…