Bombay High Court
STATE OF MAHversusGANGADHAR EKNATH PAGAR and ANR
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The High Court held that the enhancement of compensation and the statutory benefits awarded were lawful and dismissed the State's appeals.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against awards of enhanced compensation and statutory benefits granted by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Aurangabad, in a series of land acquisition cases. The State argued that the Reference Court erred in inflating compensation without adequate material and improperly granted solatium, additional components, and interest, imposing an undue burden on the exchequer. The claimants countered that they had produced genuine comparable sale deeds and that the land’s market value justified the enhancement, while the State offered no evidence to the contrary. The High Court examined the evidence, noted that the comparable sales were from the same village and that the market value increase was reasonable, and relied on precedents permitting estimation of market value. It also affirmed the statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, finding no illegality. Consequently, the Court dismissed all the appeals, upholding the enhanced compensation and statutory benefits.
Issues considered
- Whether the enhancement of compensation granted by the Reference Court is liable to be quashed
- Whether the statutory benefits (solatium, additional component, interest) awarded by the Reference Court are in accordance with law
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 23(1-A), 23(2), 28, 34
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation enhancement
- solatium
- statutory benefits
- market value assessment
- appellate review
- public exchequer
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:26371
968-FA-583-2006.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
968 FIRST APPEAL NO. 601 OF 2006
State Of Mahn Thr Collector, Aurangabad And Ors
VERSUS
Babasaheb Ranganath
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 602 OF 2006
The State Of Mah
VERSUS
Balnath Laxman
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 583 OF 2006
The State Of Mah
VERSUS
Laxman Ramrao Pagar
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 588 OF 2006
State Of Mah Thr Collector Aurangabad And Ors
VERSUS
Ratan Trambak Manjre
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 590 OF 2006
The State Of Mah
VERSUS
Ramesh Asaram And Ors.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 592 OF 2006
State Of Mah
VERSUS
Gangadhar Eknath Pagar And Anr
Shubham Page 1 of 7
968-FA-583-2006.doc
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 593 OF 2006
State Of Mah
VERSUS
Parasram Waman Pagar
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 585 OF 2006
The State Of Mah
VERSUS
Ananda Parbhat Pagar
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 587 OF 2006
The State Of Mah
VERSUS
Keshav Kisan And Ors.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 598 OF 2006
The State Of Mah
VERSUS
Kachru Bhika Pagar
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 584 OF 2006
State Of Mah Thr Collector, Aurangabad
VERSUS
Usman Lalu Shaikh Rajrabee Usman
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 599 OF 2006
The State Of Mah
VERSUS
Dagadu Bhivsan Pagar
Shubham Page 2 of 7
968-FA-583-2006.doc
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 596 OF 2006
The State Of Mah
VERSUS
Uttam Trimbak Manjre
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 594 OF 2006
State Of Mah Thr Colector Aurangabad And Ors
VERSUS
Sakharam Trambak Manjre
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 586 OF 2006
The Collector And Ors
VERSUS
Ramnath Sambre And Anr
...
Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for Appellants/State.
Mr. A. B. Kale for the Respondents.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 25 JUNE 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. By the present Appeals, the Appellants/State assail the judgment and
award dated 29th April 2004, passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division,
Aurangabad in LAR Nos.100, 271, 129, 105, 127, 172, 101, 110, 104, 102,
103, 108, 176, 170 and 177 of 2001 whereby the Reference Court granted
enhanced compensation to the Respondents/Claimants along with other
Shubham Page 3 of 7
968-FA-583-2006.doc
consequential benefits.
3. Mr. Dande, leaned AGP for the Appellants/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 instances relied upon by the Respondent/Claimant is
incompatible. He further submits that considering the location and potential
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. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent/Claimant vehemently
opposes the present Appeal on the ground that the Respondent/Claimant
had adduced evidence before learned Reference Court and has placed on
record genuine and comparable sale instances for arriving at market value.
He further submits that the land acquired was having facilities like water
supply, electricity supply and was of equal quality, fertility and potentiality.
Whereas, the Appellants/State has not adduced any evidence. Nothing
infirm has been brought on record in the cross-examination of the Claimant
by the Appellants/State so as to cast any doubt on the veracity of evidence
Shubham Page 4 of 7
968-FA-583-2006.doc
of Claimant. The comparable sale instances produced on record showed
higher market value. The sale instances were prior to the date of award.
Hence obviously there ought to have been an annual increase in the market
value. The land in question was superior to the land covered by the
comparable sale instances. Therefore, the market value of the land in
question is higher than that of comparable sale instances.
5. He further submits that the Appellants/State has adduced neither oral
evidence nor documentary evidence to show that the comparable sale
instances were beyond market value. The Appellants/State has not led
evidence to show that the price fixed by the SLAO was just, reasonable and
adequate. Therefore, the learned Reference Court has rightly appreciated the
evidence adduced by Respondent/Claimant and granted enhanced
compensation along with solatium, additional component and interest. In
support of his contention he relies upon the law laid down by Full Bench of
this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari (2016(3)
Mh.L.J. 457).
6. 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?
Shubham Page 5 of 7
968-FA-583-2006.doc
The record reveals that the Respondent/Claimant has adduced oral as
well as documentary evidence whereas the Appellants/State has not
adduced either oral or documentary evidence.
7. As to point No.I :-
The Respondent/Claimant has produced on record comparable sale
instances as sale deeds at Exh.26 and 28. The land in the said sale instances
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 instances. The Reference Court has also
considered reasonable increase in the market value after the date of
execution of comparable sale instances till the passing of the impugned
award by the SLAO.
8. 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
Appellants/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.
9. 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
Shubham Page 6 of 7
968-FA-583-2006.doc
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.
10. 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 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 at the
appropriate rate. The issue of interest is no more a res integra and is already
covered the law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in Kailash Shiva
Rangari (supra). Hence, no case is made out by the Appellants to show any
fault or illegality in awarding statutory benefits and the interest. Hence, I
answer Point No.II in negative.
11. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any perversity or illegality
in the impugned judgment and award. Hence, I pass the following order:-
ORDER
i. First Appeals are dismissed.
ii. No order as to costs.
iii. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]
Shubham Page 7 of 7
Checking your session…