Bombay High Court
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MEDIUM PROJECT DIVISIONversusSHANTABAI PUNDLIK PANDHARE AND ANR
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The Court partly allowed the appeals, granting interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 from the date of award while leaving the compensation quantum unchanged.
Summary
The Executive Engineer (Medium Project Division) appealed against the reference court's award of compensation in several land acquisition cases, contending that the enhanced compensation exceeded four times the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The State Government's policy, as reflected in Government Resolution No. Sankirna-2014, stipulated that the State would not challenge the reference court's award if the enhancement was limited to four times the original amount. The High Court examined whether the compensation quantum could be altered and considered the entitlement to interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Relying on the precedent set in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari, the Court held that interest should be awarded from the date of the original award. Consequently, the Court partly allowed the appeals, granting interest to the claimants, allowing withdrawal of any deposited amount, and disposing of the pending civil applications.
Issues considered
- The quantum of compensation awarded by the reference court may not exceed four times the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer.
- Whether the claimants are entitled to interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 from the date of the award.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 34
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- interest
- Section 34
- government resolution
- appeal
- reference court
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:26283
1 of 4 10-FA.253.2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
10 FIRST APPEAL NO. 253 OF 2013
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MEDIUM PROJECT DIVISION JALGAON
VERSUS
ASHOK LAXMAN SONAR AND ANR
...
Mr. Subhash S. Chillarge and Ms. Chaitali R. Kutti Choudhary, Advocate
for Appellant.
Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for Respondent-State.
...
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1837 OF 2010
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MEDIUM PROJECT DIVISION
VERSUS
MATHURABAI TRYAMBAK PATIL (DIED) LRS RAMESH TRYAMBAK
PATIL AND ORS
…
Mr. Subhash S. Chillarge and Ms. Chaitali R. Kutti Choudhary, Advocate
for Appellant.
Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Ajeet B. Kale, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 6.
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6809 OF 2011
IN FA/253/2013
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MEDIUM PROJECT DIVISION JALGAON
VERSUS
ASHOK LAXMAN SONAR AND ANR
…
Mr. Subhash S. Chillarge, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for Respondent-State.
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1836 OF 2010
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MEDIUM PROJECT DIVISION
VERSUS
SHANTABAI PUNDLIK PANDHARE AND ANR
2 of 4 10-FA.253.2013
…
Mr. Subhash S. Chillarge and Ms. Chaitali R. Kutti Choudhary, Advocate
for Appellant.
Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Ajeet B. Kale, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6927 OF 2011
IN FA/1837/2010
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MEDIUM PROJECT DIVISION
VERSUS
MATHURABAI TRYAMBAK PATIL (DIED) LRS RAMESH TRYAMBAK
PATIL AND ORS
…
Mr. Subhash S. Chillarge, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for Respondent-State.
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6929 OF 2011
IN FA/1836/2010
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MEDIUM PROJECT DIVISION
VERSUS
SHANTABAI PUNDLIK PANDHARE AND ANR
…
Mr. Subhash S. Chillarge, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for Respondent-State.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 2nd JULY, 2026
P.C.:-
1. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant/State.
2. By this appeal, the appellant assail the Judgment and award
dated 05.03.2010 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior
Division, Jalgaon/Reference Court in L.A.R. Nos.1804/1998,
1797/1998 and 1800/1998.
3 of 4 10-FA.253.2013
3. Both the learned Advocates submit that the compensation
enhanced by the learned Reference Court does not exceed four times
the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.
4. In view of the aforesaid submissions and having regard to the
policy decision of the State Government contained in Government
Resolution No.Sankirna-2014/Prak.Kra.4/Bham-1/A-4 dated
03.11.2016 with Corrigendum dated 23.02.2017 and 13.08.2018 to
the said Government Resolution, took a decision not to challenge the
reference, if compensation is enhanced only upto four times.
5. Therefore, I do not find any reason to intervene with the
impugned order with respect to quantum of compensation, but in
respect of grant of interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894, I am inclined to grant the same from the date of award in
view of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari, reported
in 2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457. Hence, I pass the following order:-
ORDER
(i) The present Appeals are partly allowed.
(ii) The Claimants shall be entitled to interest under Section
34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 from the date of
award as per Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra).
4 of 4 10-FA.253.2013
(iii) The Claimants are at liberty to withdraw the amount
deposited by the State/acquiring body before the learned
Reference Court, if any.
(iv) In view of disposal of the Appeals, pending Civil
Applications, if any, do not survive and are disposed of
accordingly.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Tauseef
Checking your session…