THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR, BEED AND ORSversusDIGAMBAR KONDIBA POKALE

2026:BHC-AUG:21138




                                             1        fa 372.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde Loni

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               FIRST APPEAL NO. 372 OF 2026

                       The State of Maharashtra
                       Through Collector Beed and others       .. Appellants
                            Versus
                       Eknath Manik Pokale                     ..   Respondent

                                          AND
                               FIRST APPEAL NO. 374 OF 2026

                       The State of Maharashtra
                       Through Collector Beed and others       .. Appellants
                            Versus
                       Bhausaheb Manik Pokale                  ..   Respondent

                                          AND
                               FIRST APPEAL NO. 377 OF 2026

                       The State of Maharashtra
                       Through Collector Beed and others       .. Appellants
                            Versus
                       Digambar Kondiba Pokale                 ..   Respondent

                                          AND
                               FIRST APPEAL NO. 375 OF 2026

                       The State of Maharashtra
                       Through Collector Beed and others       .. Appellants
                            Versus
                       Balu Manik Pokale                       ..   Respondent

                                          AND
                               FIRST APPEAL NO. 373 OF 2026

                       The State of Maharashtra
                       Through Collector Beed and others       .. Appellants
                            Versus
                       Sopan Kondiba Pokale                    ..   Respondent
                             2         fa 372.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde Loni

                         AND
              FIRST APPEAL NO. 376 OF 2026

     The State of Maharashtra
     Through Collector Beed and others          .. Appellants
          Versus
     Madhukar Manik Pokale                      ..   Respondent



Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I.for the Appellants in all matters.
Shri Shinde C.K., Advocate 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 16.03.2022 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 Courts are
                                       3            fa 372.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde Loni

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 Chinchala, Tq. Ashti Dist. Beed.


4.     Following are the material particulars :

Sr.   First      L.A.R.     Gut    Area     Date of Sec. Rate       Rate fixed by
No.   Appeal No. No.        No.    acquired 4            awarded by the Reference
                                            notification the SLAO   Court.
1     372/2026   224/2016    35    0.30 R.   25.02.2009   Rs. 1150/-   Rs. 2,960/- per
                                                          per R        R.
                             41    0.22 R.                Rs. 1300 per
                                                          R.
2     374/2026   223/2016    35    0.50R     25.02.2009   Rs. 1150/-   Rs. 2,960/- per
                                                          per R        R.
                             41    0.24R                  Rs. 1300 per
                                                          R.
3     377/2026   225/2016   60/1   0.27R     25.02.2009   Rs. 1300     Rs. 2,960/- per
                                                          per R        R.
4     375/2026   226/2016   34/3   0.71 R    25.02.2009   Rs. 1150/-   Rs. 2,960/- per
                                                          per R        R.
                             35    0.02 R                 Rs. 1150/-
                                                          per R
                             36    0.54 R                 Rs. 1150/-
                                                          per R
5     373/2026   227/2016   60/1   0.37R     25.02.2009   Rs.   1300/- Rs. 2,960/- per
                                                          per R        R.


6     376/2026   228/2016   37/1   0.33 R    25.02.2009   Rs.   1150/- Rs. 2,960/- per
                                                          per R        R.


5.     The lands of the respondents were acquired by preliminary
notification issued on 25.02.2009. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer passed award on 14.07.2010 offering the rate ranging
from Rs. 1150/- per R & Rs. 1300/- per R.                        Being aggrieved
respondents approached the Civil Court by preferring reference
petitions. The Reference Court enhanced the rate to Rs. 2,960/-
per R considering the lands.
                                  4      fa 372.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde Loni



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
submitted that claimants – respondents have adduced oral and
documentary evidence. The appellants did not adduce any oral
evidence. The sale deeds at Exhibit 17 & 18 were relied upon.
The Reference Court found the sale instance at Exhibit 17
compatible. The Reference Court has adopted a reasonable and
practical approach in fixing the rate at Rs. 2,960/- per R. 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 ?
                                5          fa 372.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde Loni

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.224 of
2016. The claimants produced sale deeds at Exhibit 17 & 18.
The lands in the sale instances at Exhibit 17 & 18 were from
village Chinchala. In the present matters lands from self same
village have been acquired. The Reference Court, therefore,
preferred to rely upon sale deed at Exhibit 17 for fixing the rate.
Accordingly the rate is fixed at Rs. 2,960/- per R for lands. I do
not find any illegality in the rate fixed by the Reference Court.
The discretion has been exercised judiciously and reasonably.


11.   No enhancement is granted by Reference Court in
compensation for trees, stone bund, and pipeline. Therefore, the
quantum of compensation to the extent of land is under
consideration.


12.   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.
                                6         fa 372.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde Loni

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.


13.   It is noticed that the enhancement granted by the
Reference Court is within four times in all the matters.
Therefore, the       matters are    covered   by   the    Government
Resolution No. Sankirna – 2014/Prak.Kra. 4/Bham-1/A-4 dated
03rd November, 2016 with Corrigendum dated 23 rd February,
2017 and 13th August, 2018 to the said Government Resolution.
On that count also the enhancement needs to be upheld.


      I answered point No. I against the appellants.


14.   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.


15.   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
                              7         fa 372.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde Loni

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.


16.   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.


17.   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.


18.   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 :
                               8         fa 372.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde Loni

                             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