Bombay High Court

THE STATE OF MAH AND ORSversusBALIRAM GIRDHAR NEMADE

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

Holding

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

Summary

The State of Maharashtra appealed a 2007 award that enhanced compensation for land acquired from Baliram Girdhar Nemade, alleging the enhancement lacked material support and that statutory benefits such as solatium, additional component and interest were improperly granted. The respondent did not appear, but the Reference Court had relied on a comparable sale deed from the same village and considered market value increases, as well as a government resolution permitting up to four‑fold enhancement. The High Court examined the adequacy of the market‑value determination, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Trishala Jain v. State of Uttaranchal, and found the enhancement reasonable. It also reviewed statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, concluding that solatium and the 12% increase were proper, but the interest under Section 34 was incorrectly calculated from the date of possession. Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the appeal, upheld the compensation enhancement, and directed that interest under Section 34 be computed from the date of the award as per State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari.

Issues considered

Whether the enhancement of compensation granted by the Reference Court should be quashed.
Whether the statutory benefits (solatium, additional component, interest) awarded are in accordance with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

Legislation cited

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

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation enhancement
solatium
interest calculation
statutory benefits
market value determination
appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:26294

927-FA-2734-2013.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
927 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2734 OF 2013

The State Of Mah And Ors
VERSUS
Baliram Girdhar Nemade

...
Mr. A. D. Wange, AGP for State.
...

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

P. C.:

1. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant/State.

2. By the present Appeal, the Appellants assail the judgment and award

dated 12th January 2007, passed by learned Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division,

Jalgaon in LAR No.1519 of 2005 whereby the Reference Court granted

enhanced compensation to the Respondents/Claimants along with other

consequential benefits.

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

Reference Court committed apparent error in enhancing the compensation

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 instance relied upon by the Respondent/Claimant is

incompatible. He further submits that considering the location and potential
Shubham Page 1 of 4
927-FA-2734-2013.doc

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. Though served, none appeared for the Respondent.

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

instance as sale deed at Exh.13. The land in the said sale instance was 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 instance. The Reference Court has also

considered reasonable increase in the market value after the date of

Shubham Page 2 of 4
927-FA-2734-2013.doc

execution of comparable sale instance 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%

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).

Shubham Page 3 of 4
927-FA-2734-2013.doc

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

date of possession i.e. 17th October 2002 which is not in accordance with the

above-said 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…