Bombay High Court

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER CENTRAL RAILWAYversusSANTOSH MANIK SONWANE

Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: SHAILESH P BRAHME

Holding

The Reference Court’s award of Rs 4,762 per R and the statutory benefits are upheld as lawful and reasonable, and the appeals are dismissed.

Summary

The Union of India and Central Railway appealed against a common judgment and award dated 09‑10‑2023 that fixed compensation for land acquired for a new railway line at Rs 4,762 per R, alleging the rate was excessive and the statutory benefits were illegal. The respondents, who were the claimants, supported the award, arguing that the Reference Court had correctly adopted the rate from earlier judgments and that the statutory benefits were proper. The court examined whether the Reference Court had jurisdiction to enhance the compensation and whether the interest and solatium awarded under the Land Acquisition Act were lawful. Relying on Supreme Court precedents and the classification of the land as irrigated (bagayat), the court held that the Reference Court’s determination of market value was reasonable and that the statutory benefits complied with law. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, the award was confirmed, and the amount deposited by the appellants was ordered to be paid to the claimants with interest. The court also disposed of all pending civil applications for stay.

Issues considered

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

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act — s. 12(2), 23(1-A), 28, 34, 4

Subjects

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

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:15966

1 fa 418.26 group railway appeals

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

922 FIRST APPEAL NO. 418 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3571 OF 2025

The Executive Engineer, Central
Railway, Pune and others .. Appellants
Versus
Subhash Narayan Gore and others .. Respondents

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.
Shri Ram B. Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 to
4-A to 4-C and 5.

AND
923 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3530 OF 2025

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Nagurao Raosaheb Rathod and another .. Respondents

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.
Shri Shashikant E. Shekade, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1
and 2.

AND
924 FIRST APPEAL NO. 502 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7079 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Suryabhan Tabaji Waghule .. Respondent
2 fa 418.26 group railway appeals

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.

WITH
924 FIRST APPEAL NO. 510 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7092 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Tukaram Pandurang Waghule .. Respondent

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.
Ms. G. R. Jagtap and Shri C. K. Shinde, Advocate for the
Respondent.

WITH
924 FIRST APPEAL NO. 507 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7075 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Santosh Manik Sonwane .. Respondent

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.
Shri Chandrakant K. Shinde, Advocate for the Respondent.

WITH
924 FIRST APPEAL NO. 506 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7073 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
3 fa 418.26 group railway appeals

Uttam Sadhu Waghule .. Respondent

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.
Ms. G. R. Jagtap and Shri C. K. Shinde, Advocate for the
Respondent.

WITH
924 FIRST APPEAL NO. 503 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7077 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Shivaji Babu Waghmare .. Respondent

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.

WITH
924 FIRST APPEAL NO. 504 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7082 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Deorao Babu Waghmare .. Respondent

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.

WITH
924 FIRST APPEAL NO. 505 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7095 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
4 fa 418.26 group railway appeals

Versus
Dwarkabai Sakharam Dhodge .. Respondent

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.

WITH
924 FIRST APPEAL NO. 508 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7088 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Murlidhar Sadhu Waghule .. Respondent

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.

WITH
924 FIRST APPEAL NO. 509 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7085 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Bhau Babu Waghmare .. Respondent

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.

AND
925 FIRST APPEAL NO. 511 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7197 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
5 fa 418.26 group railway appeals

Ajinath Changu Jadhav and others .. Respondents

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.

WITH
925 FIRST APPEAL NO. 513 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7189 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Subhash Rangnath Waghule .. Respondent

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.
Shri Chandrakant K. Shinde and Ms. G. R. Jagtap, Advocate for
the Respondent.

WITH
925 FIRST APPEAL NO. 514 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7191 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Babasaheb Bhau Waghule .. Respondent

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.
Shri Chandrakant K. Shinde and Ms. Jagtap, Advocate for the
Respondent.

WITH
925 FIRST APPEAL NO. 515 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7195 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
6 fa 418.26 group railway appeals

Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Nana Sona Jadhav and another .. Respondents

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.
Shri Chandrakant K. Shinde and Ms. Jagtap, Advocate for the
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

WITH
925 FIRST APPEAL NO. 517 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7199 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Ramdas Rangnath Waghule .. Respondent

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.
Shri Chandrakant K. Shinde and Ms. Jagtap, Advocate for the
Respondent.

WITH
925 FIRST APPEAL NO. 518 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7187 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Dnyandeo Vitthal Waghule .. Respondent

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.
Shri Chandrakant K. Shinde and Ms. Jagtap, Advocate for the
Respondent.

WITH
7 fa 418.26 group railway appeals

925 FIRST APPEAL NO. 519 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7183 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Bajirao Pandurang Waghule .. Respondent

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.
Shri Chandrakant K. Shinde and Ms. Jagtap, Advocate for the
Respondent.

WITH
925 FIRST APPEAL NO. 512 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7193 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Mohan Baburao Gaykwad .. Respondent

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.

WITH
925 FIRST APPEAL NO. 516 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7185 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Anant Hari Gawhale .. Respondent

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.
8 fa 418.26 group railway appeals

WITH
925 FIRST APPEAL NO. 520 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7181 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Kishan Sadu Sonwane and others .. Respondents

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.

AND
926 FIRST APPEAL NO. 590 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7054 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Baban Rangnath Waghule .. Respondent

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.

AND
927 FIRST APPEAL NO. 591 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7046 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Deorao Kondiba Jadhav .. Respondent

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.

AND
9 fa 418.26 group railway appeals

928 FIRST APPEAL NO. 592 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7028 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Namdeo Sakharam Dhadage
and another .. Respondents

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.
Ms. G. R. Jagtap and Shri C. K. Shinde, Advocates for the
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

AND
929 FIRST APPEAL NO. 593 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7030 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Dhondiba Dagadu Shelar .. Respondent

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.

AND
930 FIRST APPEAL NO. 594 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7032 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Digambar Vitthal Waghule .. Respondent

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.
10 fa 418.26 group railway appeals

Shri C. K. Shinde and Ms. G. R. Jagtap, Advocates for the
Respondent No. 1.

AND
931 FIRST APPEAL NO. 595 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7034 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Trimbak Pandurang Waghule .. Respondent

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.

AND
932 FIRST APPEAL NO. 596 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7048 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Vishnu Sitaram Gaykawad .. Respondent

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.

AND
933 FIRST APPEAL NO. 597 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7036 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Devidas Bhanudas Waghule .. Respondent
11 fa 418.26 group railway appeals

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.

AND
934 FIRST APPEAL NO. 598 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7050 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Subhash Sadhu Waghule .. Respondent

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.
Shri Chandrakant K. Shinde and Ms. G. R. Jagtap, Advocate for
the Respondent No. 1.

AND
935 FIRST APPEAL NO. 599 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7052 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Sahebrao Waman Jadhav .. Respondent

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.

AND
936 FIRST APPEAL NO. 600 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7038 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Baban Rangnath Waghule .. Respondent
12 fa 418.26 group railway appeals

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.

AND
937 FIRST APPEAL NO. 601 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7040 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Bhau Sawala Jadhav
Since deceased through his L.Rs.
Housabai and others .. Respondents

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.

AND
938 FIRST APPEAL NO. 602 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7044 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Mahadeo Dhondiba Jadhav and others .. Respondent

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.
Shri Chandrakant K. Shinde and Ms. G. R. Jagtap, Advocate for
the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

AND
939 FIRST APPEAL NO. 603 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7042 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
13 fa 418.26 group railway appeals

and others .. Appellants
Versus
Bandu Kondiba Jadhav .. Respondent

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.

AND
940 FIRST APPEAL NO. 630 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 935 OF 2024
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8905 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Ganpat Mansiram Jadhav .. Respondent

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.

WITH
940 FIRST APPEAL NO. 632 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 933 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Narayan Kisan Jadhav
Since deceased through his L.Rs.
Parmeshwar and others .. Respondents

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.
Shri Chandrakant K. Shinde and Ms. G. R. Jagtap, Advocate for
the Respondents.

WITH
940 FIRST APPEAL NO. 631 OF 2026
14 fa 418.26 group railway appeals

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 943 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Kusumbai Anant Gavhale .. Respondent

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.

WITH
940 FIRST APPEAL NO. 633 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 941 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Vitthal Kishan Jadhav
Since deceased through his L.Rs.
Kaushalya and others .. Respondents

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.

WITH
940 FIRST APPEAL NO. 634 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 945 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Sanjanabai Babasaheb Kanase .. Respondent

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.

WITH
15 fa 418.26 group railway appeals

940 FIRST APPEAL NO. 635 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 931 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Mahadeo Kisan Jadhav .. Respondent

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.

WITH
940 FIRST APPEAL NO. 636 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 947 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Ramdas Parbhati Jadhav and another .. Respondents

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.

WITH
940 FIRST APPEAL NO. 637 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 929 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Kundlik Pandurang Waghule .. Respondent

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.

WITH
940 FIRST APPEAL NO. 638 OF 2026
16 fa 418.26 group railway appeals

WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 939 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Kamalbai Parasram Waghmare .. Respondent

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.

WITH
940 FIRST APPEAL NO. 639 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13300 OF 2024
IN
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 937 OF 2024
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8915 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Yadav Tulsiram Shelar
Since deceased through his L.Rs.
Chandrabhagabai and others .. Respondents

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.

WITH
940 FIRST APPEAL NO. 640 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 927 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Vishwanath Dhondiba Jadhav .. Respondent
17 fa 418.26 group railway appeals

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.

AND
941 FIRST APPEAL NO. 743 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3579 OF 2025

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Kalyan Dattatraya Gore and others .. Respondents

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.
Shri Ram B. Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 to
3.

WITH
941 FIRST APPEAL NO. 741 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3577 OF 2025

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Gorakh Gangaram Waghule and others .. Respondents

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.
Shri Ram B. Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 &
2.

WITH
941 FIRST APPEAL NO. 742 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3573 OF 2025

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
18 fa 418.26 group railway appeals

and others .. Appellants
Versus
Satish Kundlik Gore
Since deceased through his L.Rs.
Anita Satish Gore and others .. Respondents

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.
Shri Ram B. Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 to
4.

WITH
941 FIRST APPEAL NO. 740 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3575 OF 2025

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Ambadas Mahadeo Waghule
Since deceased through his L.Rs.
Kalinda and others .. Respondents

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.
Shri Ram B. Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 &
2.

AND
942 FIRST APPEAL NO. 781 OF 2026
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13652 OF 2024

Union of India, thorugh the General
Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai
and others .. Appellants
Versus
Eknath Bhanudas Waghule
Since deceased through his L.Rs.
Navnath and others .. Respondents
19 fa 418.26 group railway appeals

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants.
Shri Chandrakant C. Shinde and Ms. G. R. Jagtap, Advocates for
the Respondent Nos. 1.1 to 1.3 and 1.5 to 1.8.

CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 10TH APRIL, 2026.

FINAL ORDER :

. Heard both sides finally.

2. The acquiring body has preferred these appeals against
common judgment and award dated 09.10.2023 awarding
compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,762/- per R to the claimants –
respondents, which is stated to be exorbitant and unreasonable.

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
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 Sheri (Bk), Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed.

4. Following are the material particulars :
20 fa 418.26 group railway appeals

Sr. First L.A.R. Gut Area Date of Sec. Rate Rate fixed by
No. Appeal No. No. No. acquire 4 awarded by the Reference
d notification the SLAO Court.
1 418/2026 684/2014 75 0.30R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- Rs. 4,762/- per
per R R. Jirayat
2 3530/2025 235/2018 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- Rs. 4,762/- per
per R R. Jirayat
3 502/2026 190/2014 26/2 0.46R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 4,762/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R. Jirayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
4 510/2026 172/2014 73 0.29R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 4,762/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R. Jirayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
5 507/2026 166/2014 26/1 0.15R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 4,762/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R. Jirayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
6 506/2026 163/2014 79 0.10R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 4,762/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R. Jirayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
7 503/2026 188/2014 31 0.42R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 4,762/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R. Jirayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
8 504/2026 737/2014 31 0.21R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 4,762/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R. Jirayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
9 505/2026 740/2017 46 0.13R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 4,762/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R. Jirayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
10 508/2026 169/2014 69 0.30R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 5,738/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R Bagayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
11 509/2026 176/2014 31 0.10R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 4,762/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R. Jirayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
12 511/2026 184/2014 30 0.15R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 5,738/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R Bagayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
13 513/2026 170/2014 27 0.16R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 4,762/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R. Jirayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
21 fa 418.26 group railway appeals

14 514/2026 185/2014 34 0.03R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 4,762/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R. Jirayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
15 515/2026 182/2014 30 0.24R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 4,762/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R. Jirayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
16 517/2026 171/2014 27 0.11R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 4,762/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R. Jirayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
17 518/2026 168/2014 73 0.23R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 4,762/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R. Jirayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
18 519/2026 167/2014 73 0.29R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 5,738/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R. Bagayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
19 512/2026 179/2014 16 0.21R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 4,762/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R. Jirayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
20 516/2026 187/2014 16 0.06R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 5,738/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R. Bagayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
21 520/2026 196/2014 71 2.36R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 4,762/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R. Jirayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
22 590/2026 164/2014 25/3 0.07R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 4,762/- per
26/1 0.22R Rs. 1300/- - II R. Jirayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
23 591/2026 193/2014 17 0.24R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 5,738/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R. Bagayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
24 592/2026 739/2017 46 0.29R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 5,738/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R. Bagayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
25 593/2026 195/2014 115/1 0.24R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 4,762/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R. Jirayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
26 594/2026 197/2014 73 0.16R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 4,762/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R. Jirayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
22 fa 418.26 group railway appeals

27 595/2026 198/2014 73 0.32R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 5,738/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R. Bagayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
28 596/2026 931/2017 115/4/ 0.01R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 4,762/- per
44 Rs. 1300/- - II R. Jirayat
111/5/ 0.20R Rs. 1400/- - III
44 per R

29 597/2026 199/2014 27 0.15R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 5,738/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R. Bagayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
30 598/2026 178/2014 79 0.24R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 5,738/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R. Bagayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
31 599/2026 165/2014 30 0.08R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 4,762/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R. Jirayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
32 600/2026 200/2014 27 0.06R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 4,762/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R. Jirayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
33 601/2026 194/2014 16 0.06R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 4,762/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R. Jirayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
34 602/2026 189/2014 17 0.30R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 4,762/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R. Jirayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
35 603/2026 180/2014 16 0.05R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 4,762/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R. Jirayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
36 630/2026 173/2014 16 0.02R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 4,762/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R. Jirayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
37 632/2026 204/2014 111/4 0.21R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 4,762/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R. Jirayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
38 631/2026 192/2014 16 0.65R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 4,762/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R. Jirayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
39 633/2026 186/2014 111/3 0.11R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 4,762/- per
177/4 0.29R Rs. 1300/- - II R. Jirayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
23 fa 418.26 group railway appeals

40 634/2026 202/2014 117/1 0.02R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 4,762/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R. Jirayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
41 635/2026 203/2014 111/3, 0.15R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 4,762/- per
117/4 0.07R Rs. 1300/- - II R. Jirayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
42 636/2026 183/2014 112/10 0.04R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 4,762/- per
112/10 0.29.50 Rs. 1300/- - II R. Jirayat
R Rs. 1400/- - III
per R

43 637/2026 201/2014 73 0.25R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 4,762/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R. Jirayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
44 638/2026 181/2014 16 0.26R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 4,762/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R. Jirayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
45 639/2026 177/2014 115/1/ 0.16R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 4,762/- per
44 Rs. 1300/- - II R. Jirayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R
46 640/2026 191/2014 111/2 0.09R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 4,762/- per
111/09 0.08R Rs. 1300/- - II R. Jirayat
111/10 0.42R Rs. 1400/- - III
116/06 0.09R per R
111/5 0.17R
47 743/2026 682/2014 75/1 0.09R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - Rs. 4,762/- per
74 0.07R per R R. Jirayat

48 741/2026 683/2014 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - Rs. 4,762/- per
per R R. Jirayat
49 742/2026 1014/201 75 0.15R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - Rs. 4,762/- per
7 per R R. Jirayat
50 740/2026 685/2014 79 0.42R 18.12.2008 Rs. 13 00/- - Rs. 4,762/- per
0.43R per R R. Jirayat

51 781/2026 735/2017 27 0.09R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 4,762/- per
Rs. 1300/- - II R. Jirayat
Rs. 1400/- - III
per R

5. The lands of the respondents were treated to be irrigated
lands. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for the sake of
brevity and convenience hereinafter referred as to the “S.L.A.O.”)
24 fa 418.26 group railway appeals

offered rate ranging from Rs. 1,150/- to 1,350/- per R. Award was
passed on 20.07.2010. The rate is enhanced to Rs. 4,762/- per R
by the Reference Court. The possession was taken on
09.07.2010. The group is decided by the Reference Court
referring to papers of L. A. R. No. 684 of 2014.

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. The reliance on the rate
fixed in L. A. R. No. 191 of 2014 is arbitrary and illegal. 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 counsels appearing for the respondents
– claimants support the impugned judgment and award. They
would submit that on the ground of parity the Reference Court
cautiously adopted the rate given in L.A.R. No. 191 of 2014 after
considering relevant aspects of the matter. It is further
submitted that when the sale instance at Exhibit 39 was treated
to be compatible, the deduction of 70% was unreasonable. In
25 fa 418.26 group railway appeals

fact, the claimants are entitled to receive more rate than
awarded by the Reference Court, but they have not preferred any
appeal due to precarious financial condition. The statutory
benefits awarded by the Reference Court cannot be faulted with.

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 evidence adduced in L.A.R. No. 684 of 2014 was taken into
account. The lands from village Sheri Budruk were acquired for
new railway line. The preliminary notification under section 04
of the L. A. Act was issued on 18.12.2008. Respondents relied on
sale deed dated 07.08.2002 at Exhibit 35 and 02.02.2000 at
Exhibit 39. They also produced on record common judgment
dated 23.11.2022 passed in LAR No. 191 of 2014. The appellant
did not adduce any oral evidence but only relied upon the award
passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.

10. Point No. I :
The respondents / claimants have produced evidence on
record to show that the lands acquired are irrigated lands. The
26 fa 418.26 group railway appeals

oral evidence is corroborated by 7 / 12 extract showing crop
pattern. Appellant did not challenge the classification of the
land. Therefore, it can be safely treated that the lands under
acquisition are bagayat lands.

11. The reference Court was conscious of the law laid down by
the Supreme Court in the matter of Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs.
Special Land Acquisition Officer, and others reported in
MANA/SC/0071/1988 laying down that the award of the Land
Acquisition Officer is not a judgment of the trial Court but it is
merely an offer of the rates. The proceedings before the reference
Court are original in nature and it would be open for the parties
to lead evidence before it. The judgment of Municipal Corporation of
Greater Bombay, Mumbai Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in
2009(2) All MR 270 was also taken into account for determining the
probable market value of the land under acquisition. It further
reveals that the ratio laid down in Meharwal Khewalji Trust, Faridkot
and others V. State of Punjab and others reported in AIR 2012 SC 2721 was
kept in mind which shows that the highest rate of the sale
exemplar if it is bona fide and akin to the nature of the land
needs, is to be accepted.

12. Two sale instances are produced on record. The
preliminary notification was issued on 18.12.2008. The rate in
the sale exemplar at Exhibit 35 was Rs.9,000/- per R and in case
of Exhibit 39, Rs.10,000/- per R. The rate in Exhibit 39 was
closer to the approximate market value of the acquired land
27 fa 418.26 group railway appeals

because in that case 20 R of dry land was sold. Whereas the
lands under acquisition are bagayat lands. The reference Court
deducted 70% because there was difference in the lands under
acquisition and the land in the sale exemplar considering the
location and potentiality. It is vulnerable. The respondents did
not claim any enhancement by challenging the findings in
respect of the rate fixed by the reference Court. Hence, it is not
necessary to examine as to whether the respondents / claimants
are entitled to more amount than fixed by the reference Court.

13. The reference Court fixed the rate on the basis of common
judgment dated 23.11.2022 passed in LAR No. 191 of 2014. I
have gone through a copy of the judgment. In that case also,
lands from village Sheri stood acquired for new railway line. The
sale example which is at Exhibit 39 dated 02.02.2000 and further
two sale instances were pressed into service. The sale instance
dated 02.02.2000 was accepted and rate of Rs.4,762/- was arrived
at. There is room to say that considering the sale exempler, more
rate could have been fixed but in the absence of any challenge by
the respondents / claimants, the exercise is unwarranted in the
present case.

14. It further reveals from record that in couple of matters
reliance is placed on the judgment dated 23.11.2022 passed in
L.A.R. No. 205 of 2014 fixing the rate at Rs. 4,762/- per R for dry
land and Rs. 5,738/- per R for irrigated land. The judgment
passed in L.A.R. No. 191 of 2014 and L.A.R. No. 205 of 2024 have
28 fa 418.26 group railway appeals

not been challenged by either of the parties. Those are
conclusive and final. Therefore, the Reference Court is justified
in adopting rate of Rs. 4,762/- per R for dry land.

15. The reference Court accepted rate of Rs.4,762/- per R, by
adopting the rate from LAR No. 191 of 2014. The discretion has
been exercised judiciously and reasonably. 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, which is rightly followed by the
reference Court. I do not find any illegality in fixing the rate 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.

16. Point No. II
The reference Court has assigned reason for not granting
interest under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. The
possession was taken from the claimants on 29.07.2010
immediately after passing of the award on 20.07.2010. It is
admitted by the respondents that the notice under section 12(2)
was issued on 28.07.2010. The claimants are entitled to get
interest U/Sec 28 of the L. A. Act. I find that no illegality is
committed by the reference Court in awarding the interest.
Needless to state that respondents are entitled to receive interest
in view of State of Maharashtra V. Kailash Shiva Rangari reported in
29 fa 418.26 group railway appeals

2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457.

17. The claimants are entitled to receive benefit U/Sec. 23(1-
A) of the L. A. Act, which is rightly awarded by the Reference
Court. No case is made out by the appellant as to how the
statutory benefits including interest are not in accordance with
law.

18. It is made clear that dismissal of these Appeals preferred
by the acquiring body would not bind any other the claimants’
whose lands have been acquired for the selfsame project in
claiming enhancement of the compensation by preferring
independent Appeals or the Cross-Objections. Their claim for any
further enhancement would be dealt with in accordance with law
and on the basis of the evidence produced on record.

19. It is further clarified that the counsels appearing for the
respondents/claimants have made candid statement that their
clients are unable to prefer any appeal or cross objection for
enhancement in the High Court. They are precluded from
claiming enhancement in future.

20. 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 :
30 fa 418.26 group railway appeals

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.

F. All pending civil applications for stay stand disposed of.

[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]

bsb/April 26

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…