Bombay High Court
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER CENTRAL RAILWAY AND ORSversusSOPAN KONDIBA POKALE
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SHAILESH P BRAHME
Holding
The High Court upheld the enhanced compensation rates and the statutory benefits, finding them reasonable and lawful, and dismissed the appeals.
Summary
The Union of India, acting through the Central Railway, acquired land in Raghapur village, Beed district, for a new railway line and the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs 1,200 per R. The civil court enhanced the rate to Rs 2,065 per R for Jirayat land and Rs 2,900 per R for seasonally irrigated land. The acquiring body appealed, contending that the enhancement and the statutory benefits of solatium and interest were unsupported by material and beyond jurisdiction. The High Court examined the common evidence, sale comparables and the parity principle, finding the enhanced rates of Rs 2,365 per R for dry land and Rs 2,900 per R for semi‑irrigated land reasonable and in line with a prior award (LAR No. 263/2014). It also held that the statutory benefits under Section 23(1‑A) were lawfully granted. Consequently, the Court dismissed all first appeals and ordered the award to be drawn and paid to the claimants.
Issues considered
- Whether the enhancement of compensation rates by the Reference Court is liable to be quashed.
- Whether the statutory benefits of solatium and interest granted by the Reference Court are in accordance with law.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 23(1-A), 6
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation enhancement
- railway project
- solatium
- interest
- reference court
- appellate jurisdiction
- parity principle
- market value
- seasonally irrigated land
- Jirayat land
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:19778
1 fa 1722.25 railway adv. Shinde
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1722 OF 2025
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Dadasaheb Shrihari Pawar .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1741 OF 2025
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Ashok Balbhim Jadhav .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1724 OF 2025
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Sopan Kondiba Pokale .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1725 OF 2025
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Govind Shankar Chawan .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1726 OF 2025
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Rama Shankar Chawan .. Respondent
2 fa 1722.25 railway adv. Shinde
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1727 OF 2025
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Parmeshwar Bayaji Kakade .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1728 OF 2025
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Chandrakala Abhiman Kakade .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1729 OF 2025
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Mahadeo Dyandeo Pawar .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1730 OF 2025
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Vishnu Bhagwat Pawar
Since deceased through his L.Rs.
Vaishali Wd/o Vishnu Pawar and others .. Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1738 OF 2025
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
3 fa 1722.25 railway adv. Shinde
Versus
Baban Baburao Jadhav .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1731 OF 2025
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Tatya Laxman Chawan .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1732 OF 2025
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Popat Mahadeo Jadhav .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1733 OF 2025
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Sakhahari Mahadeo Jadhav .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1745 OF 2025
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Yogita Popat Jadhav .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1734 OF 2025
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
4 fa 1722.25 railway adv. Shinde
Versus
Vikram Shankar Chawan .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1735 OF 2025
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Shrikant Keshav Jadhav .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1744 OF 2025
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Shriram Sahebrao Khandagale .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1736 OF 2025
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Bharat Haribhau Jadhav .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1737 OF 2025
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Lahu Parmeshwar Kerulkar .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1743 OF 2025
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
5 fa 1722.25 railway adv. Shinde
Versus
Namdeo Parmeshwar Kerulkar .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1739 OF 2025
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Ramdas Mahadeo Jadhav .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1740 OF 2025
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Bhagwan Rangnath Bhagat .. Respondent
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1746 OF 2025
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Baban Haribhau Chawan and others .. Respondents
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1723 OF 2025
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Chagan Ambadas Jadhav and others .. Respondents
Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I.for the Appellants in all matters.
Shri Chandrakant C. Shinde and Ms. G. R. Jagtap, Advocates
for the Respondents/claimants in all matters.
6 fa 1722.25 railway adv. Shinde
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 18TH APRIL, 2026.
FINAL ORDER :
. Some of the first appeals are not on today’s board. On
mentioning of the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants
those are taken on board.
2. Taken up for final disposal with the consent of the parties.
3. The acquiring body has preferred these appeals against
common judgment and award dated 27.09.2022. 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 these
appeals are decided by this common order.
4. Appellants have undertaken acquisition for laying down
new railway track from Ahmednagar – Beed – Parli. Lands from
various villages have been acquired, which resulted into filing of
various references. Those were decided by forming groups by the
Reference Court. The judgments passed by the Courts are
subjected to challenge by the acquiring body as well as the
claimants in few of the matters. In the present group the
claimants have not preferred any cross objection or appeal. The
lands are from village Raghapur, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed.
7 fa 1722.25 railway adv. Shinde
5. 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 1741/2025 236/2014 09 0.65R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- Rs. 2,900/- per
per R R. seasonally
Irrigated
2 1724/2025 229/2014 31 0.32R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- Rs. 2,900/- per
per R R. seasonally
Irrigated
3 1725/2025 230/2014 09 0.11R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- Rs. 2,900/- per
per R R. seasonally
Irrigated
4 1726/2025 231/2014 09 0.11R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- Rs. 2,900/- per
38/8B 0.1 per R R. seasonally
Irrigated
5 1727/2025 232/2014 39 0.20R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- Rs. 2,900/- per
per R R. seasonally
Irrigated
6 1728/2025 234/2014 12/1K 0.20R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- Rs. 2,365/- per
per R R. Jirayat land
7 1729/2025 235/2014 10/2A 0.32R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- Rs. 2,365/- per
per R R. Jirayat land
8 1730/2025 239/2014 12/2A 0.34R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- Rs. 2,365/- per
per R R. Jirayat land
9 1722/2025 240/2014 12/2B 0.32R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- Rs. 2,365/- per
per R R. Jirayat land
10 1738/2025 241/2014 38/8/K 0.37R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/-
per R
11 1731/2025 243/2014 09 0.15R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- Rs. 2,900/- per
per R R. seasonally
Irrigated
12 1732/2025 244/2014 4 0.15R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- Rs. 2,065/- per
4 0.34R per R R. Jirayat land
13 1733/2025 245/2014 4 0.34R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- Rs. 2,065/- per
per R R. Jirayat land
14 1745/2025 246/2014 7/11/E 0.35R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- Rs. 2,065/- per
34 0.03R per R R. Jirayat land
15 1734/2025 248/2014 09 0.15R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- Rs. 2,900/- per
per R R. seasonally
Irrigated
16 1735/2025 249/2014 34 0.08R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- Rs. 2,900/- per
per R R. seasonally
Irrigated
17 1744/2025 251/2014 12/1B 0.20R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- Rs. 2,065/- per
8 fa 1722.25 railway adv. Shinde
per R R. Jirayat land
18 1736/2025 252/2014 34 0.32R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- Rs. 2,900/- per
33 0.01R per R R. seasonally
Irrigated
19 1737/2025 253/2014 39 0.07R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- Rs. 2,900/- per
31 0.12 per R R. seasonally
Irrigated
20 1743/2025 254/2014 39 0.07R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- Rs. 2,900/- per
per R R. seasonally
Irrigated
21 1739/2025 255/2014 04 0.11R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- Rs. 2,065/- per
per R R. Jirayat land
22 1740/2025 256/2014 7/11E 0.35R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- Rs. 2,065/- per
per R R. Jirayat land
23 1746/2025 257/2014 7/11E 0.34R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- Rs. 2,065/- per
per R R. Jirayat land
24 1723/2025 258/2014 39 0.26R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- Rs. 2,900/- per
per R R. seasonally
Irrigated
6. The lands of the respondents were acquired by preliminary
notification issued on 18.12.2008. The notification U/Sec. 6 of the
Land Acquisition Act (for the sake of brevity and convenience
hereinafter referred as to the “L. A. Act”) was issued on
14.10.2009. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed award
on 19.07.2010 offering the rate of Rs. 1,200/- per R. Being
aggrieved respondents approached the Civil Court by preferring
applications. The Court enhanced the rate to Rs. 2,065/- per R
for Jirayat land and Rs. 2,900/- per R for seasonally irrigated
land.
7. 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
9 fa 1722.25 railway adv. Shinde
market rate. As against that the sale instances placed before the
Reference Court were incompatible. The reliance on the rate
fixed in L. A. R. No. 263 of 2014 is arbitrary and illegal. It is
submitted that considering the location and the potential of the
lands under acquisition, the Reference Court erred in enhancing
the rate. The Reference Court further committed illegality in
granting statutory benefits of solatium and additional
component.
8. Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the respondents
– claimants support the impugned judgment and award. They
would submit that on the ground of parity the Reference Court
cautiously adopted the rate given in L. A. R. No. 263 of 2014
after considering relevant aspects of the matter. It is submitted
that Exh. 22 to 26 were the sale instances placed before the
Reference Court which were compatible to the claim of the
claimants. The Reference Court has adopted a reasonable and
practical approach in fixing the rate at Rs. 2,365/- per R. for dry
land and Rs. 2,900/- per R. for semi irrigated land.
9. 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 ?
10 fa 1722.25 railway adv. Shinde
10. The respondents adduced oral and documentary evidence
which was recorded in LAR. No. 236 of 2014. The same is
treated to be the evidence in all the matters. In all five sale
instances from Exh. 22 to 26 were pressed into service. Besides
that judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in LAR.
No. 263 of 2014 at Exh. 54 was produced to support the ground of
parity. The appellants did not adduce any oral evidence.
11. Point No. I :
The respondents / claimants have produced evidence on
record to show that the lands acquired are irrigated lands. The
oral evidence is corroborated by 7 / 12 extract showing crop
pattern. Appellants did not challenge the classification of lands
referred in paragraph No. 16. Therefore, it can be safely treated
that the lands under acquisition are dry and semi irrigated lands
as the case may be.
12. The sale instances at Exh. 22 and 25 disclosing higher
rates are discarded because those are not from the land situated
at village Raghapur. The sale exemplar at Exh. 26 is found to be
compatible as the transaction pertain to land from village
Raghapur. The rate of Rs. 2,252/- per R. for seasonal irrigated
land is found deducible. The approach of the Reference Court is
reasonable and just in preferring the sale instance at Exh. 26.
13. The Reference Court has also taken into account the rate of
11 fa 1722.25 railway adv. Shinde
Rs.2365/- for dry land as it was done by the Reference Court in L.
A. R. No. 263 of 2014. The lands from the self-same village were
acquired. The sale instance at Exh. 38 in that matter was
considered and the rate is found to be compatible. The date of
notification and award are also found to be the same. By
adopting the rates from LAR. No.263 of 2014, the rate of
Rs.2365/- per R. for dry land and Rs.2900/- per R. for semi
irrigated land are fixed by the Reference Court.
14. The discretion has been exercised judiciously and
reasonably. 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. I do not find any illegality in fixing the rate 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.
15. Point No. II
The claimants are 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
12 fa 1722.25 railway adv. Shinde
the interest. I answered point No. II against the appellants.
16. It is made clear that dismissal of these Appeals preferred
by the acquiring body would not bind any other the claimants’
whose lands have been acquired for the selfsame project in
claiming enhancement of the compensation by preferring
independent Appeals or the Cross-Objections. Their claim for any
further enhancement would be dealt with in accordance with law
and on the basis of the evidence produced on record.
17. It is further clarified that the counsels appearing for the
respondents/claimants have made candid statement that their
clients are unable to prefer any appeal or cross objection for
enhancement in the High Court. They are precluded from
claiming enhancement in future.
18. 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 Appeals preferred by the acquiring body
sans merit. Hence, I pass the following order :
ORDER
A. First Appeals are dismissed.
B. Award be drawn accordingly.
C. There shall be no order as to costs.
13 fa 1722.25 railway adv. Shinde
D. The amount deposited by the appellants – acquiring body
shall be disbursed to the respondents – claimants with
accrued interest as per their entitlement.
E. In case the amount is not deposited, appellants shall make
the payment expeditiously.
F. All pending civil applications for stay stand disposed of.
[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]
bsb/April 26
Checking your session…