Bombay High Court

THE STATE OF MAH AND ORSversusRAOSAHEB UMAJI KADAM AND ORS

Disposal: PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The appeal is partly allowed; the enhanced compensation is upheld, but interest under Section 34 must be calculated from the date of the award, not from the notification date.

Summary

The State of Maharashtra appealed a 2009 award that enhanced compensation for land acquired from the Kadam family, alleging the enhancement and statutory benefits were unsupported and imposed an undue burden on the exchequer. The respondents produced sale deeds from 1995‑1998 as comparable market evidence, which the trial court accepted to fix a higher market value and applied a reasonable increase thereafter. The court referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal allowing estimation of market value, and found the enhancement within permissible limits under a government resolution. Statutory benefits of 30% solatium, a 12% increase, and interest under the Land Acquisition Act were upheld, except that interest under Section 34 was incorrectly calculated from the notification date. Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed, directing that interest under Section 34 be computed from the date of the award as per State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari, while leaving the rest of the award intact.

Issues considered

Whether the enhancement of compensation granted by the Reference Court should be quashed.
Whether the statutory benefits (solatium, additional component, and interest) awarded are in accordance with law.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 23(1-A), 23(2), 28, 34

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation enhancement
solatium
interest calculation
public exchequer
statutory benefits
government resolution

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:26342

926-FA-2344-2013.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
926 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2344 OF 2013

The State Of Mah And Ors
VERSUS
Raosaheb Umaji Kadam And Ors

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11004 OF 2010
IN FA/2344/2013

The State Of Mah And Ors
VERSUS
Raosaheb Umaji Kadam And Ors

...
Mr. S. A. Gaikwad, AGP for the Appellant/State.
Mr. Dattatraya Jayabhar for the Respondents (Absent).
…

CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 25 JUNE 2026

P. C.:

1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

2. By the present Appeal, the Appellants/State assail the judgment and

award dated 21st March 2009, passed by learned Principal District Judge,

Beed in LAR No.124 of 2007 whereby the Reference Court granted

enhanced compensation to the Respondents/Claimants along with other

consequential benefits.

3. Mr. Gaikwad, leaned AGP for the Appellant/State submits that the

Reference Court committed apparent error in enhancing the compensation

Shubham Page 1 of 4
926-FA-2344-2013.doc

which was not supported by adequate material. The SLAO had undertaken

due procedure of law and appropriate inspection along with joint

measurement was carried out before arriving at market value. The

comparable sale instances relied upon by the Respondent/Claimant is

incompatible. He further submits that considering the location and potential

of land under acquisition, the Reference Court has grossly erred in

enhancing the compensation. The Reference Court further committed error

in granting statutory benefit of solatium, additional component and interest.

Such enhancement has caused illegal burden on the public exchequer.

Therefore, he prays that the impugned award be set aside.

4. None appears for the Respondents.

5. Upon considering the rival submissions, the following points for

determination arose for reaching the conclusion:

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?

The record reveals that the Respondent/Claimant has adduced oral as

well as documentary evidence whereas the Appellant/State has not adduced

either oral or documentary evidence.

6. As to point No.I :-

The Respondent/Claimant has produced on record comparable sale

Shubham Page 2 of 4
926-FA-2344-2013.doc

instances as sale deeds which are of the year in between 1995 and 1998.

The land in the said sale instances were from the same village as that of the

land acquired in the present matter. Therefore, the learned Reference Court

has rightly relied on the market value of the land in the said sale instances.

The Reference Court has also considered reasonable increase in the market

value after the date of execution of comparable sale instances till the passing

of the impugned award by the SLAO.

7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Trishala Jain Vs. State of Uttaranchal (AIR

2011 SC 2458) has held that it is permissible to guess fixation of probable

market value, which has been rightly followed by the Reference Court. The

Appellant/State has failed to make out any case for interference in fixing

rate which is reasonable and akin to the market value at the relevant time.

8. It is noticed that enhancement granted by Reference Court is within

four times than that of SLAO. Therefore, the matter is covered by

Government Resolution No.Sankirna-2014/Prak.Kra.4/Bham-1/A-4 dated 3 rd

November 2016 with Corrigendum dated 23rd February 2017 and 13th

August 2018 to the said Government Resolution. On that count also the

enhancement needs to be upheld. Based on the above discussion I do not

find any illegality in the enhancement of compensation by the Reference

Court. Hence, I answer Point No.I in negative.

9. As to Point No.II:-

The claimants have been granted statutory benefit such as 30%

Shubham Page 3 of 4
926-FA-2344-2013.doc

solatium under Section 23(2), 12% increase under Section 23(1-A), interest

under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 at the appropriate rate.

The issue regarding grant of interest under Section 34 is no more a res

integra and is already covered the law laid down by Full Bench of this Court

in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari (2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457).

The learned Reference Court has granted interest under Section 34 from the

date of issuance of notification under Section 4 i.e. 23 rd March 2000 which is

not in accordance with the abovesaid ruling. Hence, no case is made out by

the Appellant to show any fault or illegality in awarding statutory benefits

except with respect to the interest part under Section 34. Hence, I answer

Point No.II partly in affirmative.

10. For the reasons stated above, I am inclined to modify the impugned

judgment and award. Hence, I pass the following order:-

ORDER

i. First Appeal is partly allowed.

ii. The amount of compensation receivable under Section 34 of the

Land Acquisition Act be calculated from the date of award passed

by Land Acquisition Officer as enunciated by Full Bench of this

Court in Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra).

iii. 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…