Bombay High Court

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORSversusVENKAT JAYWANTA PAWAR

Disposal: Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The appeal is dismissed; the enhancement of compensation and the statutory benefits awarded are upheld.

Summary

The State of Maharashtra appealed a 2010 award that enhanced compensation for land acquired from Venkat Jaywanta Pawar, alleging the enhancement and statutory benefits were unsupported by material and imposed an illegal burden on the public exchequer. The State argued that the reference court erred in relying on a comparable sale, in fixing market value, and in granting solatium, additional compensation, and interest. The court found that the comparable sale deed from the same village was a proper basis for market valuation and that the enhancement fell within permissible limits under the relevant government resolution. It also held that the statutory benefits of 30% solatium, 12% increase, and interest under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were correctly awarded, citing precedent. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the award upheld.

Issues considered

Whether the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is liable to be quashed
Whether the statutory benefits extended by the Reference Court are in accordance with law

Legislation cited

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

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation enhancement
solatium
interest
statutory benefits
appeal dismissed
market value
government resolution

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:26302

971-CA-9523-2011.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
971 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9523 OF 2011
IN FAST/14646/2011

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
VERSUS
Venkat Jaywanta Pawar

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9524 OF 2011
IN FAST/14646/2011

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
VERSUS
Venkat Jaywanta Pawar

WITH
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 14646 OF 2011

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
VERSUS
Venkat Jaywanta Pawar

...
Mr. A. D. Wange, AGP for the Appellant/State.

….

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

P. C.:

1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. First Appeal No.14646 of 2011 is not on board. Taken on board.

3. By the present Appeal, the Appellant/State assail the judgment and

award dated 11th February 2010, passed by learned Jt. Civil Judge Senior

Shubham Page 1 of 4
971-CA-9523-2011.doc

Division, Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad in LAR No.319 of 2004 whereby the

Reference Court granted enhanced compensation to the

Respondents/Claimants along with other consequential benefits.

4. Mr. Wange, 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 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 exchaquer.

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

5. Though the sole Respondent is served, none appeared for the sole

Respondent.

6. 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

Shubham Page 2 of 4
971-CA-9523-2011.doc

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.

7. As to point No.I :-

The Respondent/Claimant has produced on record comparable sale

instance as sale deed at Exh.21. 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.

8. 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 intereference in fixing

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

9. 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

Shubham Page 3 of 4
971-CA-9523-2011.doc

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.

10. As to Point No.II:-

The claimants have been granted statutory benefit such as 30%

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.

11. 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. Award be drawn accordingly.

iii. No order as to costs.

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…