Bombay High Court
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER CENTRAL RAILWAYversusSHRIDHAR RAMBHAU KAKADE AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SHAILESH P BRAHME
Holding
The High Court upheld the Reference Court’s enhanced compensation rate and statutory benefits, dismissing the appeals.
Summary
The Union of India, represented by the Central Railway, acquired land in Kinhi village for a new railway line and the Special Land Acquisition Officer initially awarded compensation of Rs 1210‑1310 per R. Claimants challenged this award, and the Reference Court enhanced the rate to Rs 3500 per R and granted statutory benefits under Section 23(1‑A). The acquiring body appealed, arguing the enhancement lacked material support and the statutory benefits were illegal. The High Court examined the evidence, noted the Reference Court’s reliance on comparable sale deeds, and held that the enhanced rate was reasonable, within the permissible four‑fold increase and consistent with the 2016 Government Resolution. It also found the statutory benefits were awarded in accordance with law, dismissing the appeals and ordering payment of the awarded amounts with interest.
Issues considered
- Whether the enhancement of the compensation rate by the Reference Court should be quashed.
- Whether the statutory benefits granted under Section 23(1‑A) of the Land Acquisition Act are lawful.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation enhancement
- statutory benefits
- Section 23
- railway project
- Reference Court
- appeal dismissed
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:21160
1 fa 623.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde kinhi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 623 OF 2026
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Dashrath Bhujaba Gaikwad and others .. Respondents
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 626 OF 2026
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Dattu Bhanu Kakade and others .. Respondents
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 627 OF 2026
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Shridhar Rambhau Kakade and others .. Respondents
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 624 OF 2026
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Appa Bayaji Kakade Died
through L.Rs. and other .. Respondents
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 628 OF 2026
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Sindhubai Dilip Raut and others .. Respondents
2 fa 623.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde kinhi
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 629 OF 2026
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Babasaheb Shivram Kakade Died
through L.Rs. .. Respondents
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 625 OF 2026
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Ajinath Gangaram Pathade and others .. Respondents
Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I.for the Appellants in all matters.
Shri Shinde C.K., Advocate and Shri C.R. Jagtap 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 27.07.2022 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 fa 623.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde kinhi
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 Kinhi, 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. acquire 4 awarded by the Reference
d notification the SLAO Court.
1 626/2026 234/2016 136 0.93 R 13.02.2009 Rs. 1210/- Rs. 3500/- per
per R R.
2 627/2026 229/2016 61 0.38 R 13.02.2009 Rs. 1210/- Rs. 3500/- per
per R R.
3 624/2026 230/2016 132 0.48 R 13.02.2009 Rs.1210 Rs. 3500/- per
per R R.
133 0.45 R. Rs.1210
per R
4 628/2026 221/2016 76 0.10R 13.02.2009 Rs. 1310/- Rs. 3500/- per R
per R.
5 629/2026 232/2016 66 0.57 R 13.02.2009 Rs.1210/- per Rs. 3500/- per
R. R.
6 625/2026 233/2016 63 0.33 R 13.02.2009 Rs. 1310/- Rs. 3500/- per R
per R.
64 0.71 R Rs.1210/- per
R.
7 623/2026 235/2016 147 0.05 R 13.02.2009 Rs. 1310/- Rs. 3500/- per
per R R.
5. The lands of the respondents were acquired by preliminary
notification issued on 13.02.2009. The Special Land Acquisition
4 fa 623.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde kinhi
Officer passed award on 24.12.2010 offering the rate ranging
from Rs. 1210/- per R & Rs. 1310/- per R. Being aggrieved
respondents approached the Civil Court by preferring reference
petitions. The Reference Court enhanced the rate to Rs. 3500/-
per R. for 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
submitted that claimants – respondents have adduced oral and
documentary evidence. The appellants did not adduce any oral
evidence. The sale deeds at Exhibit 18 and 29 were relied
upon. The Reference Court found the sale instance at Exhibit
18 compatible. The Reference Court has adopted a reasonable
and practical approach in fixing the rate at Rs. 3500/- per R for
land.
5 fa 623.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde kinhi
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.234 of
2016. The claimants produced sale deeds at Exhibit 18 and 29.
The lands in the sale instances at Exhibit 18 and 29 were from
village Kinhi. In the present matters lands from self same
village have been acquired. The Reference Court, therefore,
preferred to rely upon sale deed at Exhibit 18 for fixing the rate.
Accordingly the rate is fixed at Rs. 3500/- per R for land. 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 and stone bund. Therefore, the quantum
of compensation to the extent of land is under consideration.
6 fa 623.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde kinhi
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.
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.
7 fa 623.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde kinhi
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
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.
8 fa 623.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde kinhi
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 :
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
Checking your session…