Bombay High Court

THE UNION OF INDIA, THR THE GENERAL MANAGER, C.R. MUMBAI AND ORSversusSHAMRAO MURLIDHAR BHOGADE AND ORS

Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: SHAILESH P BRAHME

Holding

The Reference Court's enhancement of compensation to Rs.2,161 per R and the statutory benefits awarded are lawful, and the appeals are dismissed.

Summary

The Union of India, represented by the Central Railway, appealed multiple first appeals challenging the compensation rates fixed by a Reference Court for lands acquired for a new railway line in Beed district. The Reference Court had enhanced the rate from Rs.850 per R to Rs.2,161 per R for dry land and granted statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act. The appellants argued that the enhancement lacked material support and that the statutory benefits were illegal, while the respondents relied on sale deeds and prior awards to justify the higher rate. The High Court examined the evidence, found the respondents’ oral and documentary proof satisfactory, and held that the Reference Court exercised its discretion reasonably. Citing precedents on market value estimation, the Court affirmed the enhanced compensation and statutory benefits, dismissing the appeals. Consequently, the awarded amounts with interest were to be paid to the claimants.

Issues considered

Whether the enhancement of the compensation rate by the Reference Court is liable to be quashed.
Whether the statutory benefits (solatium and interest) granted by the Reference Court are in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act — s. 23(1-A), 4

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation enhancement
statutory benefits
solatium
reference court
appellate jurisdiction
market value
railway project

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:20026

1 fa 265.26 Adv. Shinde Sakat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

FIRST APPEAL NO. 265 OF 2026

Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Arjun Chandrabhan Bhogade .. Respondent

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 273 OF 2026

Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Shamrao Murlidhar Bhogade and others .. Respondents

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 267 OF 2026

Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Alkabai Bajirao Arune and others .. Respondents

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 263 OF 2026

Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Sampat Rajaram Bhogade
Since deceased through his L.Rs.
Hirabai Sampat Bhogade and others .. Respondents

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 268 OF 2026

Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
2 fa 265.26 Adv. Shinde Sakat

Versus
Bhausaheb Ramchandra Bhogade .. Respondent

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 271 OF 2026

Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Anandrao Bhaktaji Bhogade and another.. Respondents

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 266 OF 2026

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

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 264 OF 2026

Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Sushila Tukaram Bhogade .. Respondent

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 269 OF 2026

Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Kashinath Keru Bhogade .. Respondent

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 274 OF 2026

Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
3 fa 265.26 Adv. Shinde Sakat

Versus
Ashok Laxman Bhogade .. Respondent

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 272 OF 2026

Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Nandu Keru Bhogade
Since deceased through his L.Rs.
Shahabai Nandu Bhogade and another .. Respondents

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 270 OF 2026

Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Gowardhan Sahebrao Bhogade .. Respondent

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I.for the Appellants in all matters.
Shri Chandrakant K. Shinde and Ms. G. R. Jagtap, Advocates
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.

2. The acquiring body has preferred these appeals against
common judgment and award dated 09.09.20192 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
4 fa 265.26 Adv. Shinde Sakat

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 Sakat, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed.

4. Following are the material particulars :

Sr. First L.A.R. Gut Area Date of Sec. Rate awarded Rate fixed by
No. Appeal No. No. acquired 4 by the SLAO the Reference
No. notification Court.
1 265/2026 48/2014 60 0.30R 09.09.2009 Rs. 850/- per R Rs. 2,161/-/- per
dry land R. dry land.
2 273/2026 44/2014 50/1 1.30R 09.09.2009 Rs. 850/- per R Rs. 2,161/-/- per
dry land R. dry land.
3 267/2026 45/2014 36 0.73r 09.09.2009 Rs. 735/- per R Rs. 2,161/-/- per
dry land R. dry land.
4 263/2026 46/2014 59/2 0.49R 09.09.2009 Rs. 850/- per R Rs. 2,161/-/- per
dry land R. dry land.
5 268/2026 47/2014 61/1 0.24R 09.09.2009 Rs. 850/- per R Rs. 2,161/-/- per
dry land R. dry land.
6 271/2026 502014 50/1 0.45R 09.09.2009 Rs. 850/- per R Rs. 2,161/-/- per
dry land R. dry land.
7 266/2026 51/2014 61/1 0.31R 09.09.2009 Rs. 850/- per R Rs. 2,161/-/- per
dry land R. dry land.
8 264/2026 52/2014 59/1 0.14R 09.09.2009 Rs. 850/- per R Rs. 2,161/-/- per
dry land R. dry land.
9 269/2026 53/2014 59/1 0.09R 09.09.2009 Rs. 850/- per R Rs. 2,161/-/- per
dry land R. dry land.
10 St. 54/2014 50/1 1.30R 09.09.2009 Rs. 850/- per R Rs. 2,161/-/- per
8831/2022 dry land R. dry land.
5 fa 265.26 Adv. Shinde Sakat

11 274/2026 55/2014 59/3 0.84R 09.09.2009 Rs. 850/- per R Rs. 2,161/-/- per
dry land R. dry land.
12 272/2026 56/2014 59/1 0.07R 09.09.2009 Rs. 850/- per R Rs. 2,161/-/- per
dry land R. dry land.
13 270/2026 57/2014 64/1 0.22R 09.09.2009 Rs. 850/- per R Rs. 2,161/-/- per
dry land R. dry land.

5. The lands of the respondents were acquired by preliminary
notification U/Sec. 4 of the L. A. Act issued on 09.02.2009. The
Special Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 26.03.2010
offering the rate of Rs. 850/- per R for dry land in Group – I and
Rs. 735/- per R for Group II. Being aggrieved respondents
approached the Civil Court by preferring reference petitions.
The Reference Court enhanced the rate to Rs. 2,161/- 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.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents
– claimants supports the impugned judgment and award. It is
6 fa 265.26 Adv. Shinde Sakat

submitted that claimants – respondents have adduced oral and
documentary evidence. The appellants did not adduce any oral
evidence. The sale deeds at Exhibit Nos. 30 and 31. The
Reference Court found the sale instance at Exhibit Nos. 30 and
31 compatible and preferred. The reference Court has also relied
upon the award Exhibit 43 passed in L.A.R. No. 324 of 2006 and
another award at Exhibit 51 passed in L.A.R. No. 364 of 2010.
The Reference Court has adopted a reasonable and practical
approach in fixing the rate at Rs. 2,161/- per R. for dry 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.

10. Point No. I :
The evidence was led by the claimants in L.A.R. No. 48 of
2014. The claimants produced sale deeds at Exhibit Nos. 30 and
31, award at Exhibit 43 passed in L. A. R. No. 324 of 2006 and
award at Exhibit 51 passed in L.A.R. No. 364 of 2010. The land
in the sale instance at Exhibit No. 30 was from self same village.
7 fa 265.26 Adv. Shinde Sakat

The Reference Court, therefore, preferred to rely upon sale deed
Exhibit 30 for fixing the rate. Accordingly the rate is fixed at Rs.
2,161/- 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. The lands under acquisition are
treated to be dry lands.

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.

I answered point No. I against the appellants.

12. 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.
8 fa 265.26 Adv. Shinde Sakat

13. 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 delt with in accordance with law and on
the basis of the evidence produced on record.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. For the reasons stated above, I do not find that there is any
9 fa 265.26 Adv. Shinde Sakat

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…