UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER CENTRAL RAILWAY AND ORSversusBABAN REVBA SAYKAD (DIED) THR KUSUM AND ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:21633




                                        1        fa 805.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde, Raghapur

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               FIRST APPEAL NO. 805 OF 2026

                       Union of India through the General
                       Manager, Central Railway and others     .. Appellants
                            Versus
                       Balu Rangnath Bhagat                    ..   Respondent

                                          AND
                               FIRST APPEAL NO. 196 OF 2025

                       Union of India through the General
                       Manager, Central Railway and others     .. Appellants
                            Versus
                       Namdeo Laxman Khandagale                ..   Respondent

                                           AND
                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 798 OF 2026

                       Union of India through the General
                       Manager, Central Railway and others     .. Appellants
                            Versus
                       Ramchandra Nivrutti Chawan              ..   Respondent

                                           AND
                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 192 OF 2025

                       Union of India through the General
                       Manager, Central Railway and others     .. Appellants
                            Versus
                       Baban Revaba Saykad Died
                       through L.Rs. Kusum and others          ..   Respondents

                                        AND
                            FIRST APPEAL (St) NO. 11501 OF 2024

                       Union of India through the General
                       Manager, Central Railway and others     .. Appellants
                               Versus
                         2         fa 805.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde, Raghapur

      Ushabai Dattu Jadhav and others            ..   Respondents

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I.for the Appellants in all matters.
Shri Shinde C.K., Advocate and Ms. G.R. Jagtap for the
Respondents/ claimants in all matters.


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

FINAL ORDER :


.     Taken up for final disposal with the consent of the parties.
In these groups some of the matters are not on board.              On
mentioning its taken on board.


2.    The acquiring body has preferred these appeals against
common judgment and award dated 28.04.2022 passed in group
of Reference Petitions. 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.


3.    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
                                  3             fa 805.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde, Raghapur

lands are from village Raghapur, Tq. Ashti Dist. Beed.


4.     Following are the material particulars :

Sr.   First      L.A.R.     Gut       Area   Date of Sec.     4 Rate fixed by the
No.   Appeal     No.        No.       acquir notification       Reference Court.
      No.                             ed
1     805/2026   247/2014     8       0.05 R   18.12.2008       Rs. 2500/-     per   R.
                                                                Jirayat


2     196/2025   233/2014   12/1A 0.21 R       18.12.2008       Rs.   3000     Per   R.
                                                                Seasonally irrigated

                             39       0.17                      Rs.   3000     Per   R.
                                                                Seasonally irrigated
3     798/2026   559/2014   38/8/A 0.10 R      18.12.2008       Rs. 2500 per R. Jirayat


4     192/2025   260/2014    31       0.12 R   18.12.2008       Rs.   3000     Per    R.
                                                                Seasonally irrigated.
5     F.A.St.No. 262/2014     4       0.12     18.12.2008       Rs.   3000     Per    R.
      11501/2024                                                Seasonally irrigated.


5.     The lands of the respondents were acquired by preliminary
notification issued on 18.12.2008. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer passed award on 19.07.2010                     offering the rate of Rs.
1200/- per R. Being aggrieved respondents approached the Civil
Court by preferring reference petitions.                    The Reference Court
enhanced the rate to Rs. 2500/- per R for Jirayat and Rs. 3000/-
per R. for seasonally irrigated 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
                          4        fa 805.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde, Raghapur

Reference Court were incompatible. 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.


7.    Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
– claimants supports the impugned judgment and award. It is
submitted that claimants – respondents have adduced oral and
documentary evidence. The appellants did not adduce any oral
evidence. The sale deed at Exhibit 27 was relied upon. The
Reference Court found the sale instance at Exhibit 27
compatible. The Reference Court has adopted a reasonable and
practical approach in fixing the rate at Rs. 2500/- per R for
Jirayat and Rs. 3000/- per R. for seasonally irrigated 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.
                           5          fa 805.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde, Raghapur

10.   Point No. I :
      The evidence was led by the claimants in L.A.R. No. 247
of 2014. The claimants produced sale deed at Exhibit 27. The
land in the sale instance at Exhibit 27 was from village
Raghapur. In the present matters lands from self same village
have been acquired. The Reference Court, therefore, preferred to
rely upon sale deed at Exhibit 27 for fixing the rate.
Accordingly the rate is fixed at Rs. 2500/- per R for Jirayat and
Rs. 3000/- per R. for seasonally irrigated land. I do not find any
illegality in the rate fixed by the Reference Court. The discretion
has been exercised judiciously and reasonably.


11.   No enhancement is granted by Reference Court in
compensation for trees, stone bund, pipeline, structure, farm
house, well etc. Therefore, the quantum of compensation to the
extent of land is under consideration.


12.   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.


13.   It is noticed that the enhancement granted by the
                           6         fa 805.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde, Raghapur

Reference Court is within four times in all the matters.
Therefore, the       matters are    covered   by    the   Government
Resolution No. Sankirna – 2014/Prak.Kra. 4/Bham-1/A-4 dated
03rd November, 2016 with Corrigendum dated 23 rd February,
2017 and 13th August, 2018 to the said Government Resolution.
On that count also the enhancement needs to be upheld.


            I answered point No. I against the appellants.


14.   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
the interest.


      I answered point No. II against the appellants.


15.   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. Their claims for any further
enhancement would be dealt with in accordance with law and on
the basis of the evidence produced on record.


16.   It is further clarified that the counsel appearing for the
                          7          fa 805.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde, Raghapur

respondents/claimants has made candid statement that his
clients are unable to prefer any appeal or cross objection for
enhancement in the High Court.           They are precluded from
claiming enhancement in future.


17.   This Court had an occasion to deal with first appeals
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 appeals 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
judgments rendered by the Reference Court in the present
matters also.


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.
                          8         fa 805.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde, Raghapur


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.



                               [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]


bsb/April 26