UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER CENTRAL RAILWAYversusLAXMAN S/O BALBHIM GHUMBRE (DIED) THR LRS SUMANBAI AND ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:20019




                                                1            fa 2200.25 Adv. Bide Mainda

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                FIRST APPEAL NO. 2200 OF 2025

                        Union of India through the General
                        Manager, Central Railway and others       .. Appellants

                              Versus

                        Laxman Balbhim Ghumbre
                        Since deceased through his L.Rs.
                        Sumanbai and others                       ..   Respondents

                 Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I.for the Appellants.
                 Shri Dnyaneshwar A. Bide, 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 this appeal against
                 judgment and award dated 10.02.2023 passed in L. A. R. No. 316
                 of 2017. The rate fixed by the Reference Court for the land under
                 acquisition and consequential quantum is under challenge.


                 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
                                      2                  fa 2200.25 Adv. Bide Mainda

subjected to challenge by the acquiring body as well as the
claimants in few of the matters.                In the present matter the
claimants have not preferred any cross objection or appeal. The
land is from village Mainda, Tq. and 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     2200/2025   316/2017    150   0.05R   18.12.2008    Rs.   1,300/- Rs. 5,144/- per
                                                          per R         R.


5.     The land of the respondents was acquired by preliminary
notification issued on 30.03.2012. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer passed award on 01.12.2011 offering the rate of Rs.
1,300/-per R. Being aggrieved respondents approached the Civil
Court by preferring reference petition.                   The Reference Court
enhanced the rate to Rs. 5,144/- per R.


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
acquisition, the Reference Court erred in enhancing the rate.
The Reference Court further committed illegality in granting
                              3              fa 2200.25 Adv. Bide Mainda

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 31 dated 23.11.2007 and
award passed in L.A.R. No. 177 of 2013 at Exhibit 49 were placed
on record for claiming enhanced compensation.                Same is
compatible. The Reference Court has adopted a reasonable and
practical approach in fixing the rate at Rs. 5,144/- per R. for dry
lands.


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 claimants produced sale deed at Exhibit 31 dated
23.11.2007 and award passed in L.A.R. No. 301 of 2017 at
                                4             fa 2200.25 Adv. Bide Mainda

Exhibit 49. The land in the sale instance at Exhibit 31 was from
village Mainda.      In the present matter land from self same
village has been acquired.          The Reference Court, therefore,
preferred to rely upon sale deed at Exhibit 31 for fixing the rate.
Accordingly the rate is fixed at Rs. 5,144/- per R for dry lands. 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.


12.   It is noticed that the enhancement granted by the
Reference Court is within four times. The matter i 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.
                               5             fa 2200.25 Adv. Bide Mainda

13.   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.


14.   It is made clear that dismissal of this Appeal 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 delt with in accordance with law and on
the basis of the evidence produced on record.


15.   It is further clarified that the counsel appearing for the
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.


16.   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
                              6              fa 2200.25 Adv. Bide Mainda

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.


17.   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 respondents – claimants with
      accrued interest as per their entitlement.


E.    In case the amount is not deposited, appellants shall make
      the payment expeditiously.
                              7           fa 2200.25 Adv. Bide Mainda

F.     Record and proceedings shall be sent back to the Reference
       Court immediately.



                              [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]

bsb/April 26