India Through The General Manager Central Railway MumbaiversusRamkishan Dnyanoba Sanap And Ors

2026:BHC-AUG:21699




                                           1         fa 1644.25 Adv. S. R. Shirsat Raimoha

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                FIRST APPEAL NO. 1644 OF 2025

                        Union of India through the General
                        Manager, Central Railway and others         .. Appellants
                             Versus
                        Ramkishan Dnyanoba Sanap and Ors.           ..   Respondents

                 Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I.for the Appellants
                 Shri S. R. Shirsat, Advocate for the Respondents/ claimants


                                    CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
                                    DATE : 18TH APRIL, 2026.

                 FINAL ORDER :


                 .      Taken up for final disposal with the consent of the parties.


                 2.     The acquiring body has preferred the appeal against
                 judgment and award dated 03.05.2023 passed in Reference
                 Petition. The rate fixed by the Reference Court for the lands
                 under acquisition and consequential quantum is under challenge.
                 The evidence adduced before the Reference Court is common,
                 hence the appeal is decided by this order.


                 3.     Appellants have undertaken acquisition for laying down
                 new railway track from Ahmednagar – Beed – Parli. Lands from
                 village have been acquired, which resulted into filing of
                 reference. It was decided by the Reference Court. The judgment
                 passed by the Court is subjected to challenge by the acquiring
                                   2           fa 1644.25 Adv. S. R. Shirsat Raimoha

body as well as the claimant in the present matter.                             In the
present matter, the claimant has not preferred any cross
objection or appeal. The lands are from village Raimoha, Tq.
Shirur Kasar, Dist. Beed.


4.     Following are the material particulars :

Sr.   First      L.A.R.      Gut       Area    Date of Sec. Rate       Rate fixed by
No.   Appeal No. No.         No.       acquire 4            awarded by the Reference
                                       d       notification the SLAO   Court.
1     1644/2025   101/2019   221       14 R   18.12.2008   Rs. 2,110/-    Rs. 6,379/- per
                                                           per    R    to R. Jirayat land
                                                           Rs.2410/- per
                                                           R



5.     The land of the respondent was acquired by preliminary
notification issued on 18.12.2008. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer passed award on 24.09.2011 offering the rate of Rs.
2,110/- per R. to Rs. 2,410/- per R. Being aggrieved respondent
approached the Civil Court by preferring reference petition. The
Reference Court enhanced the rate to Rs. 6,379/- per R for
Jirayat land.


6.     Mr. Ajay Talhar, learned D. S. G. I. submits that Reference
Court committed error of jurisdiction in enhancing the rate
which is not supported by adequate material. It is submitted
that S. L. A. O. had undertaken due procedure of law and
inspection was done. The documents were collected to arrive at
market rate. As against that the sale instances placed before the
Reference Court were incompatible. It is submitted that
considering the location and the potential of the lands under
                          3       fa 1644.25 Adv. S. R. Shirsat Raimoha

acquisition, the Reference Court erred in enhancing the rate.
The Reference Court further committed illegality in granting
statutory benefits of solatium and additional component.


7.    Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent –
claimant supports the impugned judgment and award. It is
submitted that claimant – respondent has adduced oral and
documentary evidence. The appellants did not adduce any oral
evidence.   The sale deeds at Exhibit 28 and 31 were relied
upon. The Reference Court found the sale instances at Exhibit
31 compatible. The Reference Court has adopted a reasonable
and practical approach in fixing the rate at Rs. 6,379/- per R for
Jirayat land.


8.    I have considered rival submissions of the parties. I have
formulated following points for determination.


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 ?


9.    The respondents adduced oral and documentary evidence.
The appellants did not lead oral evidence.


10.   Point No. I :
      The claimant produced sale deeds at Exhibit 28 and 31.
                           4          fa 1644.25 Adv. S. R. Shirsat Raimoha

The land in the sale instances at Exhibit 28 and 31 were from
village Raimoha. In the present matter lands from self same
village have been acquired. The Reference Court, therefore,
preferred to rely upon sale deeds at Exhibit 31 for fixing the
rate.    Accordingly the rate is fixed at Rs. 6,379/- per R for
Jirayat land. I do not find any illegality in the rate fixed by the
Reference Court. The discretion has been exercised judiciously
and reasonably.


11.     There is no reason to discard the rate. There is always
some element of guesswork in fixation of the probable market
value. It is permissible to have guesstimate as explained by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Trishala Jain V. State of Uttaranchal, reported in
AIR 2011 SC 2458 which is rightly followed by the reference Court.
The appellant has failed to make out any case to cause
interference in fixing the rate which is reasonable and akin to
the market value at the prevalent time.


        I answered point No. I against the appellants.


12.     Point No. II
        The claimant is granted benefits under Section 23(1-A) of
the Act. The interest has been awarded in accordance with law
laid down in State of Maharashtra V. Kailash Shiva Rangari reported in
2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457. No case is made out by the appellants to show
any fault or illegality in awarding statutory benefits and the
interest.
                         5        fa 1644.25 Adv. S. R. Shirsat Raimoha


      I answered point No. II against the appellants.




13.   It is made clear that dismissal of these Appeals preferred
by the acquiring body would not bind any other claimants’ whose
lands have been acquired for the self same project in claiming
enhancement of the compensation by preferring independent
Appeals or the Cross-Objections. His claims for any further
enhancement would be dealt with in accordance with law and on
the basis of the evidence produced on record.


14.   It is further clarified that the counsel appearing for the
respondent/claimant has made candid statement that his clients
are unable to prefer any appeal or cross objection for
enhancement in the High Court. He is precluded from claiming
enhancement in future.


15.   This Court had an occasion to deal with first appeal
preferred by the self same acquiring body challenging judgments
of the Reference Court arising out of self same purpose of
acquisition.   This Court dismissed the appeal by assigning
elaborate reasons in the matter of the Executive Engineer,
Central Railway, Pune and others Vs. Subhash Narayan
Gore and others in First Appeal No. 418 of 2026 with other
connected matters vide judgment and order dated
10.04.2026. I propose to follow the same course in upholding the
                           6         fa 1644.25 Adv. S. R. Shirsat Raimoha

judgments rendered by the Reference Court in the present
matter also.


16.    For the reasons stated above, I do not find that there is any
perversity or illegality in the judgment and award passed by the
reference Court.    The Appeal preferred by the acquiring body
sans merit. Hence, I pass the following order :


                               ORDER

A.     First Appeal is dismissed.


B.     Award be drawn accordingly.


C.     There shall be no order as to costs.


D.     The amount deposited by the appellants – acquiring body
       shall be disbursed to the respondent – claimant with
       accrued interest as per their entitlement.


E.     In case the amount is not deposited, appellants shall make
       the payment expeditiously.




                                    [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]
bsb/April 26