NANDED WAGHALA CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THR COMMISSIONERversusGOUSIYA BEGUM SK HASAN@BABA MIYAN AND ORS

                                                              907-FA-1642-2012.doc




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                      907 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1642 OF 2012

          Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corporation Thr Commissioner
                                  VERSUS
                Gousiya Begum Sk Hasan@baba Miyan And Ors

                                    ...
Mr. M. D. Narwadkar for the Appellant.
Mr. Mahesh Ghatge for the Respondents (absent).
                                    ...


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

P. C.:

1.        Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

2.        By the present Appeal, the Appellant/acquiring body assails the

judgment and award dated 27.03.2012, passed by learned Jt. Civil Judge

Senior Division, Nanded in LAR No.753 of 2010 whereby the Reference

Court granted enhanced compensation to the Respondents/Claimants along

with other consequential benefits.

3.        Mr. Narwadkar, leaned counsel for the Appellant/acquiring body

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

Shubham                                                                  Page 1 of 4
                                                          907-FA-1642-2012.doc


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.

4.        Though Respondent No.1-Original Claimant is served, none appeared

for Respondent No.1-Original Claimant.

5.        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?

          The record reveals that the Respondent/Claimant has adduced oral as

well as documentary evidence whereas the Appellant/acquiring body has

not adduced either oral or documentary evidence.

6.        As to point No.I :-

          The Respondent/Claimant has produced on record comparable sale

instance as sale deeds at Exh.23. 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

Shubham                                                              Page 2 of 4
                                                            907-FA-1642-2012.doc


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.

7.        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.

8.        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

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.

9.        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

Shubham                                                                Page 3 of 4
                                                                907-FA-1642-2012.doc


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.

10.       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. No order as to costs.

          iii. The amount deposited, if any, by the Appellant/State be disbursed

               to the Respondent/Claimant with the accrued interest as per the

               entitlement of Respondent/Claimant.

          iv. In case the amount is not deposited, the Appellant/State shall pay

               the amount expeditiously.

          v.   Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.



                                            [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]




Shubham                                                                    Page 4 of 4