Bombay High Court
THE CHIEF EXE ENGINEER AND ANRversusGOVIND BIRU RATHOD AND ORS
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The Court held that the reasoning in LAR No.169 of 2001 must be consistently applied to the other appeals, leading to dismissal of the acquiring body’s appeals and modification of the award to Rs.127.50 per sq ft with statutory benefits.
Summary
The Central Railway acquired land in Hanumantwadi village for a broad‑gauge line, and the Ad‑hoc District Judge awarded compensation of Rs.1170‑Rs.1420 per square foot, which claimants contested seeking Rs.50 per sq ft. The Reference Court later enhanced compensation to Rs.2500 per sq ft, and in a 2013 decision (LAR No.169 of 2001) awarded Rs.127.50 per sq ft. The acquiring body appealed the award across several related cases, while claimants filed cross‑objections for higher compensation. The High Court examined whether the reasoning in LAR No.169 should be applied uniformly to the other appeals. Finding no reason to diverge, the Court dismissed the acquiring body’s appeals, partly allowed the claimants’ cross‑objections, set compensation at Rs.127.50 per sq ft, and granted statutory benefits including interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, confirming the remainder of the award.
Issues considered
- Whether the view adopted in LAR No.169 of 2001 should be applied to the other related land acquisition appeals
- Appropriate quantum of compensation per square foot for the acquired land
- Entitlement of claimants to statutory benefits and interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 11, 28, 34, 4
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- railway
- judicial consistency
- statutory interest
- Section 4
- Section 11
- Section 28
- Section 34
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:40997
Dilwale 1 911-FA-1594-09.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
911 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1594 OF 2009
The Chief Ex Eng ( Construction ) Central Railway Mumbai And Anr
VERSUS
Nivarathi Ramji Narhare And Ors
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. M. N. Navandar
AGP for Respondent-State: Mr. D. R. Korde
Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 : Mr. Gundre Suraj V.
...
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 204 OF 2026
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1593 OF 2009
Subhash Baburao Yadav And Ors
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 205 OF 2026
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1592 OF 2009
Govind Biru Rathod
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 206 OF 2026
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1590 OF 2009
Jaishri Damodhar Chavan
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 207 OF 2026
Dilwale 2 911-FA-1594-09.odt
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1591 OF 2009
Mohd Ismile Sheikh Maheboob Died Th Lrs Malanbi Mohmab Ismile
Shaikh And Ors
VERSUS
The Stat E Of Maharashtra And Ors
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Gundre Suraj V.
AGP for Respondent-State: Mr. D. R. Korde
Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : Mr. Navandar Manish N.
WITH
X-OBJECTION (STAMP) NO. 796 OF 2012
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1589 OF 2009
Sunil Gunwantrao Shelke And Anr
VERSUS
The State Of Mah And Ors
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Gundre Suraj V.
AGP for Respondent-State: Mr. D. R. Korde
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1590 OF 2009
The Chief Ex Eng ( Construction ) Central Railway Mumbai And Anr
VERSUS
Jaishri Damodhar Chavan And Ors
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. M. N. Navandar
AGP for Respondent-State: Mr. D. R. Korde
Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Gundre Suraj V.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1591 OF 2009
The Chief Executive Engineer And Anr
VERSUS
Mohd Ismile Sheikh Maheboob And Ors
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. M. N. Navandar
AGP for Respondent-State: Mr. D. R. Korde
Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Gundre Suraj V.
Dilwale 3 911-FA-1594-09.odt
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1592 OF 2009
The Chief Exe Engineer And Anr
VERSUS
Govind Biru Rathod And Ors
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. M. N. Navandar
AGP for Respondent-State: Mr. D. R. Korde
Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Gundre Suraj V.
WITH
X-OBJECTION NO. 203 OF 2026
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1594 OF 2009
Nivarathi Ramji Narhare Died Thr Lrs Trivenabai And Ors
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Gundre Suraj V.
AGP for Respondent-State: Mr. D. R. Korde
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1589 OF 2009
The Chief Executive Engineer And Anr
VERSUS
Sunil Gunwantrao Shelke And Ors
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. M. N. Navandar
AGP for Respondent-State: Mr. D. R. Korde
Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : Mr. Gundre Suraj V.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1593 OF 2009
The Chief Executive Engineer And Anr
VERSUS
Subhash Baburao Yadav And Ors
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. M. N. Navandar
AGP for Respondent-State: Mr. D. R. Korde
Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Gundre Suraj V.
Dilwale 4 911-FA-1594-09.odt
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 957 OF 2009
Union Of India
VERSUS
Baburao Mallikarjun Patil And Anr
...
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. M. N. Navandar
AGP for Respondent-State: Mr. D. R. Korde
….
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 01.09.2026
PER COURT :
1. As the acquisition proceedings are of the year 2000, the appeals are
being heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the
respective parties.
2. By the present appeals, the acquiring body is assailing the
judgment and award dated 07.02.2008 passed by learned Ad-hoc District
Judge-4 Latur in LAR No.164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169 and 171 of 2001,
whereby compensation came to be enhanced. The claimants have filed
cross objections seeking higher compensation.
3. The land of the claimants from village Hanumantwadi Tal.
Renapur, Dist. Latur was acquired for the purpose of Broad Gauge
Railway Line Miraj-Latur to Latur Road. The notification under Section 4
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) was published on
31.01.1996, the possession was taken on 26.02.1996, the award under
Section 11 of the Act was passed on 20.12.1998, thereby granting
Dilwale 5 911-FA-1594-09.odt
compensation @ Rs.1170/-, Rs.1290/- and Rs.1420/- per R. The
claimants claimed compensation @ Rs.50/- per sq. ft. The learned
Reference Court enhanced the same to Rs.2500/- per R.
4. Mr. Gundre, the learned counsel for the claimants tenders across
the bar the copy of the order dated 29.04.2026 passed by this Court in
First Appeal No.2394 of 2013 along with connected matters, whereby
compensation @ Rs.127.50/- per sq. ft. was awarded to the claimants
therein. The learned counsel submits that by the said order, the First
Appeal preferred against LAR No.169 of 2001 was decided. The LAR
No.169 of 2001 was decided by the learned Reference Court by common
judgment and award dated 07.02.2008. The present matters arise out of
the said common judgment and award dated 07.02.2008, therefore, he
prays to take consistent view in the present matters also.
5. He further submits that the learned counsel for the acquiring body
is also having knowledge that the remaining references decided by the
common award dated 07.02.2008 are assailed in the present appeals.
Therefore, the view taken by this Court in LAR No.169 of 2001 ought to
be applied in the present matters also.
6. Per contra, Mr. Navandar, learned counsel for the acquiring body
submits that out of seven LARs which were decided by common award
dated 07.02.2008, he has received instructions to challenge all references
except LAR No.169 of 2001. According to him, the view taken by this
Court in LAR No.169 of 2001 cannot automatically be made applicable to
Dilwale 6 911-FA-1594-09.odt
the remaining LARs which are assailed in the present appeal and the
remaining appeals deserve to be decided on their own merits. Therefore,
he prays to allow the First Appeals filed by acquiring body and dismiss
the cross objections filed by the claimants.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and
upon perusal of the record including the order dated 29.04.2026 passed
by this Court in LAR No.2394 of 2013 along with connected matters, it is
clear that this Court has decided appeal preferred against LAR No.169 of
2001 which was decided by learned Reference Court by common award
dated 07.02.2008. By the said common award, learned Reference Court
has decided other references which are assailed in the present matters.
Thus, I do not find any reason to take a contrary view in the present
matters. Therefore, to maintain judicial propriety, I am inclined to take a
similar view. Hence, I pass following order:
ORDER
I. The First Appeals filed by acquiring body are dismissed.
II. The cross objections filed by claimants are partly allowed.
III. The claimants are entitled to compensation @ Rs.127.50/-
per sq. ft. and to that extent impugned award stands
modified.
IV. The claimants are also entitled to all statutory benefits
including interest under Sections 28 and 34 as per Full
Bench judgment of this Court in State of Maharashtra v.
Dilwale 7 911-FA-1594-09.odt
Kailash Shiva Rangari, 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457.
V. Rest of the impugned award stands confirmed.
VI. Modified award be drawn accordingly.
VII. Deficit Court fee be paid.
VIII. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
Checking your session…