Bombay High Court
UNION OF INDIA THR DY CHIEF ENGINEER, SOLAPURversusSHAIKH CHAND MOHAMMAD RASHID AND ANR
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The first appeals filed by the acquiring body are dismissed; cross‑objections are partly allowed; compensation is set at Rs 123 per square foot with statutory benefits, but no interest for the delayed period.
Summary
The Union of India, as the acquiring authority for a railway expansion project, acquired land in Arvi village under a Section 4 notification of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs 127 per square metre, which the claimants challenged before the reference court, leading to an enhanced rate of Rs 70 per square foot. The claimants later filed cross‑objections in the acquiring body’s first appeals after a 14‑year delay, seeking a higher market value of Rs 123 per square foot, citing a coordinate bench decision in a similar case. The court condoned the delay in filing the cross‑objections, but held that the acquiring body’s appeals were without merit because the coordinate bench’s determination of Rs 123 per square foot applied to the same project. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, the cross‑objections were partly allowed, and the claimants were awarded compensation at Rs 123 per square foot with all statutory benefits except interest for the period of delay.
Issues considered
- The delay in filing cross‑objections: whether it should be condoned.
- Whether the acquiring body’s first appeals challenging the reference court’s award have merit in view of the coordinate bench’s earlier decision.
- What is the appropriate market value compensation for the acquired land.
- Whether claimants are entitled to interest and other statutory benefits for the period of delay.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order 41 Rule 22
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 18, 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- market value
- delay condonation
- cross objections
- railway project
- statutory benefits
- interest
- coordinate bench
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:41929
FA 1345/12 & Ors.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
15 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1345 OF 2012
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5600 OF 2013 IN FA/1345/2012
UNION OF INDIA THR. DY CHIEF ENGINEER, CONSTRUCTION, CENTRAL
RAILWAY
VERSUS
RAMLAL GANESH TIWARI AND ANR
…
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6958 OF 2026 IN X-OBJST/19299/2026 IN
FA/1345/2012
RAMLAL GANESH TIWARI DIED THR. LRS VIDYA MADAN TIWARI AND ANR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
…
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8827 OF 2026 IN X-OBJST/23499/2026 IN
FA/1345/2012
RAMLAL GANESHLAL TIWARI AND ORS.
VERSUS
THE DY. CHIEF ENGINEER (C), CONSTRUCTION DIVISION, CENTRAL
RAILWAY, SOLAPUR AND ORS.
…
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1348 OF 2012
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5597 OF 2013 IN FA/1348/2012
UNION OF INDIA THR DY CHIEF ENGINEER, SOLAPUR
VERSUS
SHAIKH CHAND MOHAMMAD RASHID AND ANR
…
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6963 OF 2026 IN X-OBJST/19302/2026 IN
FA/1348/2012
SHAIKH CHAND MOHAMMAD RASHID.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE COLLECTOR LATUR AND ANR.
…
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1347 OF 2012
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7943 OF 2021 IN FA/1347/2012
WITH
FA 1345/12 & Ors.
2
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2605 OF 2017 IN FA/1347/2012
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5599 OF 2013 IN FA/1347/2012
UNION OF INDIA THR DY CHIEF ENGINEER, SOLAPUR
VERSUS
PAWANKUMAR SHIVLAL TIWARI AND ORS
…
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4812 OF 2024 IN X-OBJST/4059/2024 IN
FA/1347/2012
PAWNKUMAR SHIVLAL TIWARI AND ANR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE COLLECTOR LATUR AND ORS.
…
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1346 OF 2012
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5598 OF 2013 IN FA/1346/2012
UNION OF INDIA THR DY CHIEF ENGINEER, SOLAPUR
VERSUS
RAMLAL GANESH TIWARI AND ANR
…
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8828 OF 2026 IN X-OBJST/23496/2026 IN
FA/1346/2012
RAMLAL GANESHLAL TIWARI AND ORS.
VERSUS
THE DY. CHIEF ENGINEER (C), CONSTRUCTION DIVISION, CENTRAL
RAILWAY, SOLAPUR AND ORS.
…
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6962 OF 2026
IN X-OBJST/19296/2026 IN FA/1346/2012
RAMLAL GANESH TIWARI DIED THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS VIDYA AND ANR.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS COLLECTOR, LATUR AND ORS.
…
Advocate for Appellants/acquiring body : Mr. Manish N. Navandar , Mr. S.V.
Gundre and Mrs. Tanvi S. Gundre.
AGP for Respondents/State : Mr. A.M. Phule
Advocate for Respondents/original claimants : Mr. S.S. Manale, Mr. S.V.
Gundre, Mr. Fayaz K. Patel
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
FA 1345/12 & Ors.
3
Dated : September 07, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. Before proceeding to decide the appeals on merits, as there was
delay in filing the cross objections filed by the original claimants, it is
necessary to consider the applications filed for condonation of delay in filing
the cross objections. The learned counsel for the original claimants/cross
objectioners submits that acquiring body has challenged the award passed
by the reference court by filing the present first appeals, those appeals were
already admitted by this Court on 1.10.2012. In para 3, 4 and 5 of the
applications, the reasons are given by the original claimants for condonation
of delay. As the acquisition proceedings arise out of same notification, from
same project and lands are acquired from the same village, reasons given in
CA No. 8827/2026 are reproduced below :-
“3. The father of the applicants, namely Rambler, was
looking after the affairs of the first appeal. After the
judgment passed by the reference court, the appeal could
have been filed immediately but Ramlal, fell sick and
ultimately he died in the year on 25-02-2014. Thereafter the
applicants were brought on record as his legal heirs. The
applicants also could not file the appeal because the financial
condition of the applicant was not sound. Much of
compensation, withdrawn from this honourable court, was
utilized, for the treatment of Ramlal.
4. In the month of April 2026 the advocate for the
applicants informed the applicants that in other first appeals
this honourable court has awarded market value at the rate
of Rs. 123 per sq ft. The applicant's land is also acquired by
the same notification for the same purpose as in those first
appeals. On the ground of parity the applicant is entitled for
the same rate of compensation.
5. The applicants state that right to property is
recognized as a human right and the applicants are entitled
to receive just and fair compensation for the acquired land.
FA 1345/12 & Ors.
4
The appeal filed by the acquiring body is pending for the last
14 years. This honourable court will be deciding the just and
fair compensation payable to the applicants in the appeal
filed by the acquiring body. The applicants are not paid the
entire compensation awarded by the reference court by the
impugned judgment and award in the first appeal. The
applicants have received part payment, that too on
furnishing security. The appeal filed by the acquiring body is
not heard till today. The subject matter of the cross-
objection filed by the applicants is also the just and fair
market value of the acquired land.”
2. The acquiring body filed reply to the said delay condonation
applications by contending that the original claimants have already served
in the appeals filed by the acquired body and as per Order 41, Rule 22 of
the Civil Procedure Code, the claimants are required to file cross objections
within one month from the date of service in the appeal, but there was huge
delay of 14 years in filing the cross objections and therefore, this Court
should not condone the delay. Mr. Navandar, learned counsel submits that
as the claimants have already appeared in the first appeals filed by the
acquiring body and they were represented through the counsel and in spite
of that they filed cross objections after 14 years. He further submits that
after getting knowledge that compensation was enhanced by the coordinate
bench of this court, subsequently the cross objections are filed to get
enhanced compensation. In support of the above contentions, he placed
reliance on the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case
of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Vs. Punjsons Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2008
(6) BCR 641 and contended that if the application for delay condonation is
allowed, which needs to be filed within one month after the service of notice
in first appeal, it will cause burden on public exchequor. Therefore, this
Court should reject the applications filed for condonation of delay in filing
FA 1345/12 & Ors.
5
the cross objections.
3. After hearing the learned counsel for respective parties, I have gone
through the order dated 16.4.1926 passed by the coordinate bench of this
Court in First Appeal No. 185/2010 (Deputy Chief Engineer (C) Vs. Maruti
Bapurao Pawar and others) and other connected matters in which the cross
objections were filed without any delay and therefore, the division bench
has rightly considered that if the cross objections were filed by the original
claimants within one month from the date of service in appeals, then only
the claimants need to file application for delay condonation. Here in the
present cases, the cross objections were filed by accompanying the
applications for condonation of delay. The acquiring body has already filed
the present appeals before this court. Therefore, considering all above, this
Court holds that the land acquisition proceedings are beneficial legislation,
therefore, the delay caused in filing the cross objections needs to be
condoned subject to condition that for the delayed period the claimants are
not entitled to any statutory benefits/interest. Therefore, the delay caused
in filing the cross objection is condoned subject to condition that the
claimants are not entitled to interest and statutory benefits under the Act
for the delayed period i.e. after one month of service in the appeals filed by
the acquiring body till today.
4. As far as the first appeals filed by the acquiring body and the cross
objections filed by the original claimants are concerned, the same arise out
of acquisition proceedings initiated in the year 1996. Hence, heard finally
with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties.
5. By these appeals, the appellants/acquiring body assail the judgment
and award dated 14.3.2012 passed by the learned 2 nd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior
FA 1345/12 & Ors.
6
Division, Latur in LAR Nos. 552, 553, 554 and 555 of 2000, whereby the
reference court has enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs. 70/- per
sq. ft. In these appeals, the cross objections were filed by the claimants and
there was delay in filing those cross objections, which was condoned by this
Court today.
6. The details of the acquired lands, first appeals and compensation
granted by the reference court are as under :-
First Appeal First Appeal LAR No. Gat Area Compensa- Awarded by
filed filed by No. tion awarded Reference
by Claimants Acquiring body. by LAO court
For
Enhancement
Cross Obj. st. FA 1345 of 2012 552/2000 83 44 R. 127/- per Sq. 70/- per sq. ft
no. mtr
19296 of 2026
Cross Obj. st. FA 1346 of 2012 553/2000 83 3700 sq mtr As above As above
no. (NA
19299 of 2026 permission)
Cross Obj. st. FA 1348 cf 2012 554/2000 8 51 R As above As above
no.
19302 of 2026
Cross Obj. St FA 1347 cd 2012 555/2000 82 58 R As above As Above
no.
4059 of 2024
7. The lands of the claimants mentioned above were acquired for the
purpose of expansion of Broad-gauge railway line Miraj Kurudwadi Latur to
Latur Road at village Arvi, Taluka and Dist. Latur. Notification under section
4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 19.10.1995. The learned
Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) has passed the award on
31.01.1999 and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.127/- per sq. mtr.
Being dissatisfied with the award of the SLAO, the claimant filed an
application before the Collector for referring the matter under section 18 of
the Act for proper determination of the market value of the acquired land.
The learned reference court after going through the evidence and examining
FA 1345/12 & Ors.
7
the record, enhanced the compensation at the rate of Rs. 70/- per sq. ft.
Being dissatisfied with the same, the present first appeals as well as cross
objections are filed.
8. Mr. Manish N. Navandar, learned counsel for acquiring body submits
that before the reference court, the claimants relied upon the sale instance,
Exh. 23, dated 19.1.1996 by which 2000 sq. ft. area of plot situated at Gat
No. 105 was sold for consideration of Rs.4,10,000/- i.e. Rs.205/- per sq. ft.
The claimants have claimed enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.100/-
per sq. ft. The learned reference court by applying 30% standard
deductions as per the rate claimed by the claimants has determined the
compensation at the rate of Rs.70/- per sq. ft. Mr. M.N. Navandar, learned
counsel for acquiring body vehemently submits that as this sale instance is
in respect of the small piece of land and huge area of the lands were
acquired for the above project, it is unsafe to rely upon the same. He
therefore, submits that the learned reference court ought not to have relied
upon the above sale instance. In support of his above contentions he placed
reliance on following judgments, which are as under :-
(i) State of Hryana Vs. Ram Singh, AIR 2001 SC 2532.
(ii) Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Housing
Board Vs. P.M. Mallappa, LEX (SC) 1997 3 119.
(iii) R.P. Singh V. Union of India, AIR 2005 SC 4189.
(iv) Hookiyar Singh Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Moradabad, AIR 1996 SC 3207.
(v) State of Maharashtra Vs. Digamber Tandale, 1996 (2)
JT 528.
(vi) Pitamber Hemlal Badgujar Vs. Sub Divisional Officer,
Dhule, AIR 1996 SC 3117
(vii) State of Orissa Vs. Brij Lal Mishra etc. 1995 AIR SCW
FA 1345/12 & Ors.
8
3993.
(viii) Basant Kumar and Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.,
1996 (11) SCC 542.
9. Mr. Navandar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/acquiring
body submits that the learned reference court has committed erred by
relying upon the above sale instance which is for the small piece of land and
the learned reference court has not recorded any reasons as to how the
reference court come to the conclusion to grant such rate for the acquired
lands and only because claimants have claimed rate of Rs.100/- per sq. fts,
the reference court by deducting 30% amount has determined the rate
which was exorbitant and excessive. He further submits that if such order is
maintained it will cause huge burden on public exchequer and ultimately it
is nothing, but wastage of money and prayed to allow the appeals filed by
the acquiring body.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respective original
claimants tendered across the bar the copy of the order passed by the
coordinate bench of this Court in First Appeal Nos. 185/2010 (supra) and
contended that the coordinate bench has already enhanced the
compensation at the rate of Rs. 123/- per sq. ft. and in the present matters
also, the date of notification, purpose for the acquiring lands is the same
and the lands acquired were from the same village and therefore, the
claimants are also entitled to receive the compensation as was granted in
FA No. 185/2010 (supra). They further submit that once the claimants relied
upon the sale instance of 1996 the rate comes to Rs.205/- per sq. ft.,
however, as the claimants claimed rate of Rs.100/- per sq. fts, therefore,
the learned reference court after applying 30% deductions has granted
FA 1345/12 & Ors.
9
compensation at the rate of Rs.70/- per sq. ft. and therefore, in view of the
above judgment of the coordinate bench, the compensation granted by the
reference court is very meager and therefore, they pray to grant the rate
which was granted in FA No.185/2010 (supra) by the coordinate bench of
this Court.
11. Mr. M.N. Navandar, learned counsel for the acquiring body
controverted to the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the
original claimants by contending that though the village is the same, there
were two different notifications and two different awards were passed and
therefore, the order passed by the coordinate bench of this Court cannot be
made applicable and therefore, this court may take a different view as the
order passed by the other coordinate bench is not binding upon this Court.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, with their
assistance I have gone through the record and proceedings and the
impugned judgment and award of the reference court as well as the SLAO.
Section 4 notification came to be published in the present matters on
19.10.1995. As per the award the notification under section 4 was published
on 11.2.1996 in the village. After going through the judgment and award
passed by the SLAO, I find that in the said order, some incorrect dates are
mentioned about passing of the award. But after going through the same,
the land from village Arvi were acquired by the acquiring body by issuing
section 4 notification on 11.2.1996 and only one award was passed and
therefore, common judgment and award was passed.
13. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the
claimants, one thing needs to be taken into consideration that before the
reference court the same sale instance was relied upon and the coordinate
FA 1345/12 & Ors.
10
bench after going through the same sale instance of 1996 has determined
the compensation and the rate comes to Rs.123/- per sq. ft. though the
sale instance is for small piece of land. But on perusal of the order of the
coordinate bench of this Court, it is seen that the coordinate bench has not
applied the sale instance as it is, considering the fact that the same is for
small piece of land, the coordinate bench of this Court by applying 40%
deductions determined the market rate of acquired lands in those matters
and determined market value of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.123/-
per sq. ft. Therefore, in view of the above facts and considering that the
present matters also arise out of the same award, from the same
notification, for the same purpose and from the same village and the
coordinate bench has determined the compensation as mentioned above,
therefore, to maintain judicial discipline, this Court is of the view that the
order passed by the coordinate bench needs to be considered here in the
present cases to determine the correct market value of the acquired lands.
Therefore, considering the above, I find that there is no reason to consider
the appeals filed by the acquiring body as once the coordinate bench
enhanced the compensation for the same project, there is no scope to
consider the appeals filed by the acquiring body. Hence, the first appeals
filed by the acquiring body are devoid of merits and the same needs to be
dismissed. Hence, I proceed to pass the same order as was passed in FA
No. 185/2010 (supra) by the coordinate bench of this court, which is as
under :-
ORDER
I. The first appeals filed by the acquiring body are dismissed.
II. Cross-objections filed by the claimants are partly allowed.
FA 1345/12 & Ors.
11
III. The impugned judgment and award dated 14.3.2012 partly set aside
and modified as under:
(a) The claimants are entitled to compensation @ Rs.123/- per sq. ft. for
their acquired lands, including the earlier compensation awarded and
received by them, along with all statutory benefits like interest, component
and solatium etc., as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
IV. It is clarified that the claimants are not entitled to the interest and
other statutory benefits for the period of delay, if any, condoned by this
Court.
V. The respondent-Acquiring Authority is directed to deposit the
enhanced amount of compensation along with all statutory benefits like
interest, component and solatium etc., in this Court within six months.
VI. If court fee is not sufficiently paid, the appellants shall pay deficit
court fee. On receiving the same, the enhanced amount of compensation be
paid to the claimants.
VII. Award be drawn up accordingly.
VIII. Pending civil applications, if any, are disposed of.
IX. Record and Proceedings be sent back.
( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )
ssc/
Checking your session…