Bombay High Court

THE CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTIN) CENTRAL RAILWAYversusAMIN DADAN KABADE AND ORS

Disposal: DISMISSED

Holding

The enhancement of compensation to Rs 6,000 per R is upheld and the first appeals are dismissed.

Summary

The Chief Engineer (Construction) of Central Railway sought to acquire land at Harangul village for a broad‑gauge railway expansion. The original compensation of Rs 1,085 per R was awarded by the State Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) and later enhanced by the Reference Court to Rs 6,000 per R. The railway authority filed first appeals challenging the enhancement, arguing the Reference Court relied on guesswork and improperly discarded sale instances of non‑agricultural land. The claimants contended the discarded sale instances were irrelevant and that the enhancement was appropriate. The court examined the nature of the land, found the sale instances pertained to non‑agricultural land while the acquired land remained agricultural, and held that the enhancement to Rs 6,000 per R was adequate. Consequently, the first appeals were dismissed as devoid of merit.

Issues considered

Whether the Reference Court erred in enhancing compensation to Rs 6,000 per R without sufficient reasoning.
Whether sale instances of non‑agricultural land should be considered in determining compensation for agricultural land.
Whether the enhancement based on the SLAO award is legally valid.

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation enhancement
railway expansion
civil appeal
reference court
delay condonation

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:37065

937-CA-4402-2010.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
937 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4402 OF 2010
IN FAST/7742/2010

The Chief Engineer (construction) Central Railway
VERSUS
Manchakrao Bairam Done And Ors

WITH
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 7742 OF 2010

The Chief Engineer (construction) Central Railway
VERSUS
Manchakrao Bairam Done And Ors

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 3332 OF 2011

The Chief Engineer (construction) Central Railway
VERSUS
Sau Shantabai Manohar Shinde And Ors

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2335 OF 2014

The Chief Engineer (construction) Central Railway
VERSUS
Amin Dadan Kabade And Ors
...
Mr. Manish Navandar for Applicant.
Mr. Rohit Gunale h/f V. D. Gunale for Respondent No.1.
Mr. AAA Khan, AGP for State.
...

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 6 AUGUST 2026

P. C.:

Civil Application No. 4402 Of 2010 in FAST/7742/2010

1. The present Civil Application is filed for condonation of delay of 168

days in filing First Appeal.
Shubham Page 1 of 4
937-CA-4402-2010.doc

2. Considering the averments made in the Application, the delay is

condoned in terms of prayer clause ‘B’.

First Appeal (St) No. 7742 Of 2010, First Appeal No. 3332 Of 2011 and First
Appeal No.2335 Of 2014

3. These First Appeals are not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on

board.

4. The First Appeal Nos.3332 of 2011 and 2335 of 2014 are already

admitted. As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 1995, all the First

Appeals are being heard finally with the consent of learned counsel.

5. The Appellant/acquiring body is assailing the order dated 15 th April

2009, passed by 3rd Jt. CJSD Latur in LAR Nos.132/2007, 275/2004 and

1115/1999 whereby enhanced compensation came to be granted to the

claimants.

6. The land of the claimants at village Harangul (Bk.) Tq. Latur was

acquired for expansion of railway line into broad gauge. The notification

under Section 4 was published on 26th September 1995, award was passed

on 31st January 1999, the SLAO granted compensation @Rs.1085/- per R

which was enhanced by the learned Reference Court to the tune of

Rs.6,000/- per R. The claimants had claimed compensation @Rs.250/- per

sq. ft.

7. The learned counsel for the acquiring body submits that the learned

Reference Court has granted enhancement to the tune of Rs.6000/- per R

Shubham Page 2 of 4
937-CA-4402-2010.doc

only upon guesswork and by relying upon award passed by the LAO which is

filed below Exh.22. The enhancement granted without giving reasons

deserves to be quashed. He further submits that the learned Reference Court

has rightly discarded the sale instances produced below Exhs.31 to 37, but it

erred in relying upon award passed by the LAO while enhancing the

compensation. Therefore, he prays to quash the impugned award.

8. The learned AGP supports the submission of the learned counsel for

the acquiring body.

9. Per contra learned counsel for the claimants submits that the

claimants had filed sale instances below Exhs.31 to 37 but the same were

discarded by the learned Reference Court on the ground that they pertained

to non-agricultural lands whereas the acquired land was agricultural land.

At the same time, learned Reference Court has enhanced the compensation

by relying upon award passed by the LAO thereby enhancing the

compensation to the tune of Rs.6000/- per R which is appropriate. Hence,

he prays to dismiss the First Appeals.

10. Having considered rival submissions of the respective counsel and

upon perusal of record and proceeding it is clear that the sale instances

relied upon by the claimants were pertaining to non-agricultural lands.

Whereas the acquired lands were not converted into non-agricultural lands.

Therefore, the learned Reference Court has rightly discarded the said sale

instances below Exhs.31 to 37. Though the learned Reference Court has

Shubham Page 3 of 4
937-CA-4402-2010.doc

relied upon award passed by the LAO which was produced below Exh.22

wherein the LAO had awarded compensation of Rs.1085/- per R, the

learned Reference Court has enhanced the same to an adequate extent of

Rs.6000/- per R, which in my opinion can be said to be sufficient

enhancement. Thus, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned

award.

11. Hence, the First Appeals being devoid of merits, are dismissed. No

order as to costs.

12. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.

[SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]

Shubham Page 4 of 4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…