Bombay High Court
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRAversusPOPAT NANABHAU UGHADE AND ORS
- Disposal
- Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
Holding
The appeal is partly allowed; the enhancement of compensation stands, but interest under Section 34 must be calculated from the date of the award as per the Full Bench precedent.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed a 2011 award of compensation in a land acquisition case involving Popat Nanabhau Ughade and others, challenging the enhancement of compensation and certain statutory benefits. The State argued that the Reference Court had erred in raising the market value and in granting solatium, additional components, and interest, particularly under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. The court examined the evidence, noting that the Reference Court had followed established principles, including a Supreme Court precedent allowing reasonable market value estimation. It held that the enhancement of compensation was lawful, but the calculation of interest under Section 34 was inconsistent with a prior Full Bench decision. Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed: the compensation award remains unchanged, while interest is to be calculated from the date of the award as directed by the precedent. The condonation applications for delay were also allowed, and pending civil applications were disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the enhancement of compensation granted by the Reference Court is liable to be quashed.
- Whether the statutory benefits, including solatium, additional component, and interest under the Land Acquisition Act, were awarded in accordance with law, particularly the computation of interest under Section 34.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 23(1-A), 23(2), 28, 34
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation enhancement
- solatium
- interest calculation
- Section 34
- condonation of delay
- appellate review
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:26692
1 of 6 933-CA.8561.2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
933 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8561 OF 2017
IN FAST/5067/2015
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
VERSUS
POPAT NANABHAU UGHADE DIED THR HIS LRS LATA AND ORS
...
Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for the Appellant-State.
...
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5235 OF 2015
IN FAST/5067/2015
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
VERSUS
POPAT NANABHAU UGHADE AND ORS
…
Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for the Appellant-State.
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5237 OF 2015
IN FAST/5067/2015
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
VERSUS
POPAT NANABHAU UGHADE AND ORS
…
Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for the Appellant-State.
…
AND
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.5067 OF 2015
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
VERSUS
POPAT NANABHAU UGHADE AND ORS
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 2nd JULY, 2026
Tauseef
2 of 6 933-CA.8561.2017
P.C.:-
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8561 OF 2017:-
1. By this application, the Applicants are seeking condonation
of delay of 2844 days in bringing the legal heirs of Respondent No.1-
Popat Nanabhau Ughade on record.
2. Considering the averments made in the application, the
application is allowed. Amendment be carried out forthwith.
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5235 OF 2015:-
3. By this application, the Applicants are seeking condonation
of delay of 1095 days in filing first appeal.
4. Considering the averments made in the application, the
application is allowed.
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.5067 OF 2015:-
5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
6. By the present Appeal, the Appellants/State assails the
judgment and award dated 30.08.2011 passed by learned Reference
Court in LAR No.208 of 1993, whereby the compensation granted by
the SLAO came to be enhanced.
7. Mr. B. A. Shinde, leaned AGP for the Appellant/State submits
that the Reference Court committed apparent error in enhancing the
compensation which was not supported by adequate material. The
Tauseef
3 of 6 933-CA.8561.2017
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
Respondents/Claimants are 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.
8. None appears for the Respondents/Claimants, though served.
9. 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?
10. The record reveals that the Respondents/Claimants have
adduced oral as well as documentary evidence whereas the
Appellant/State has not adduced either oral or documentary evidence.
As to point No.I :-
11. The Respondents/Claimants have produced certificate
Tauseef
4 of 6 933-CA.8561.2017
copies of evidence in LAR Nos.364/1993, 136/1992 and 234/1992,
238/1992 along with certified copy of judgment delivered therein to
contend that the market value for their acquired land be calculated on
the basis of compensation granted in those references. The learned
Reference Court has taken into consideration the fertility, potentiality
and quality of the land acquired. It has further recorded finding upon
consideration of record before it that the land acquired was Jirayat
land and, therefore, it deducted 50% amount from the market value
assigned to the land in the above said references. Upon calculation,
the learned Reference Court reached to the conclusion that the market
value of the land acquired would be Rs.45,000/- per Hector.
12. 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.
13. 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.
As to Point No.II:-
14. The claimants have been granted statutory benefit such as
Tauseef
5 of 6 933-CA.8561.2017
30% 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 taking possession
i.e. 16.07.1986 which is not in accordance with the above said 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.
15. 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) and to that extent Clause (3)(ii) of the
operative part of order of learned Reference Court
stands modified.
Tauseef
6 of 6 933-CA.8561.2017
(iii) Rest of the order of the learned Reference Court stands
unaltered.
(iv) Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Tauseef
Checking your session…