UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER CENTRAL RAILWAY AND ORSversusSAKHARAM LAXMAN KHOLE AND ANR

2026:BHC-AUG:20032




                                           1        fa 2365.25 Adv. Bide Rakshasbhuwan

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               FIRST APPEAL NO. 2365 OF 2025

                       Union of India through the General
                       Manager, Central Railway and others       .. Appellants
                            Versus
                       Sakharam Laxman Khole and another         ..   Respondents

                                          AND
                               FIRST APPEAL NO. 2951 OF 2024

                       Union of India through the General
                       Manager, Central Railway and others       .. Appellants
                            Versus
                       Vishnu Appasaheb Khole and others         ..   Respondents

                                          AND
                               FIRST APPEAL NO. 2952 OF 2024

                       Union of India through the General
                       Manager, Central Railway and others       .. Appellants
                             Versus
                       Dagdu Kisan Khole
                       Since deceased through his L.Rs.
                       Appasaheb Dgdu Khole and another          ..   Respondents

                                          AND
                               FIRST APPEAL NO. 2953 OF 2024

                       Union of India through the General
                       Manager, Central Railway and others       .. Appellants
                            Versus
                       Bhausaheb Pandurang Khole                 ..   Respondent

                 Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I.for the Appellants in all matters.
                 Shri Dnyaneshwar A. Bide, Advocate for the Respondents/
                 claimants in all matters.
                                2            fa 2365.25 Adv. Bide Rakshasbhuwan

                    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 these appeals against
common judgment and award dated 02.08.2022 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 Reference 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
lands are from village Rakshasbhuwan, Tq. Shirur (Kasar), Dist.
Beed.


4.      Following are the material particulars :

Sr.   First    L.A.R. No. Gut       Area    Date of Sec. Rate       Rate fixed by
No.   Appeal              No.       acquire 4            awarded by the Reference
      No.                           d       notification the SLAO   Court.
                                 3            fa 2365.25 Adv. Bide Rakshasbhuwan

1    2365/2025 1714/2017   282       0.24R   18.12.2008   Rs. 750/- Rs. 3,125/-/- per
                                                          per R dry R. dry land.
                                                          land
2    2951/2024 1712/2017   181/1 1.26R       18.12.2008   Rs. 750/- Rs. 3,125/-/- per
                                                          per R dry R. dry land.
                                                          land
3    2952/2024 1716/2017   344/1 0.45R       18.12.2008   Rs. 750/- Rs. 3,125/-/- per
                                                          per R dry R. dry land.
                                                          land
4    2953/2024 1713/2017   344/2 0.62R       18.12.2008   Rs. 750/- Rs. 3,125/-/- per
                                                          per R dry R. dry land.
                                                          land


5.    The lands of the respondents were acquired by preliminary
notification U/Sec. 4 of the L. A. Act issued on 18.12.2008. The
Special Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 06.08.2011
offering the rate at Rs. 750/- per R for dry land.                        Separate
compensation for stone bund and trees was also granted. Being
aggrieved respondents approached the Civil Court by preferring
reference petitions. The Reference Court enhanced the rate to
Rs. 3,125/- per R for dry 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
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.
                          4        fa 2365.25 Adv. Bide Rakshasbhuwan



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 deeds at Exhibit Nos. 19 to 21.            The
Reference Court found the sale instance at Exhibit Nos. 19 to 21
compatible and preferred to rely upon them. The Reference Court
has adopted a reasonable and practical approach in fixing the
rate at Rs. 3,125/- per R. for dry land. The Reference Court has
also granted separate rate for stone bund and threes.


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 evidence was led by the claimants in L.A.R. No. 1712
of 2017. The claimants produced sale deeds at Exhibit Nos. 19 to
21. The lands in the sale instances at Exhibit Nos. 19 to 21 were
                            5         fa 2365.25 Adv. Bide Rakshasbhuwan

from self same village. The Reference Court, therefore, preferred
to rely upon sale deeds for fixing the rate. Accordingly the rate is
fixed at Rs. 3,125/- per R for dry lands and separate
compensation has been granted for stone bund and trees. I do
not find any illegality in the rate fixed by the Reference Court.
The discretion has been exercised judiciously and reasonably.
The lands under acquisition are treated to be dry lands. The
Reference Court has specifically relied on the sale instance at
Exhibit 21 dated 11.09.2000.


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.   The respondents were granted separate compensation for
structure and trees. By reasoned order it is recorded that they
failed to make out a case for enhancement. The compensation
granted by the S. L. A. O. is upheld.


      I answered point No. I against the appellants.


13.   Point No. II
      The claimants are granted benefits under Section 23(1-A)
                           6         fa 2365.25 Adv. Bide Rakshasbhuwan

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 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.


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
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
                           7          fa 2365.25 Adv. Bide Rakshasbhuwan

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 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.


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