Bombay High Court
India through The General Manager Central RailwayversusRamdas Pandharinath Walake
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- SHAILESH P BRAHME
Holding
The High Court upheld the Reference Court's enhanced compensation and statutory benefits, finding no jurisdictional error or illegality.
Summary
The Union of India, acting through the Central Railway, acquired lands in Loni Syed Mir village for a new railway line and the Special Land Acquisition Officer initially awarded compensation of Rs.860‑Rs.1,000 per R. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,047 per R, classifying the land as dry land, and also granted statutory benefits under Section 23(1‑A). The acquiring body appealed, alleging jurisdictional error, lack of material support for the enhancement, and illegality in granting solatium and interest. The respondents relied on oral and documentary evidence, including sale deeds, which the Reference Court deemed appropriate. The High Court held that the Reference Court exercised its discretion reasonably, the enhancement was within permissible limits, and the statutory benefits were correctly awarded, thus dismissing the appeals.
Issues considered
- Whether the Reference Court erred in enhancing the compensation rate to Rs.2,047 per R.
- Whether the statutory benefits (solatium and interest) awarded under Section 23(1‑A) are lawful.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 23(1-A)
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation enhancement
- dry land valuation
- statutory solatium
- interest on compensation
- railway project
- reference court
- appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:21170
1 fa 687.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde Loni
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 687 OF 2026
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Vinayak Kashinath Walake and others .. Respondents
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 688 OF 2026
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Dattu Dagadu Walake and others .. Respondents
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 696 OF 2026
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Sumanbai Shanakr Raut .. Respondent
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 697 OF 2026
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Babu Maruti Jadhav .. Respondent
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 699 OF 2026
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Mohan Ambu Walke and Anr. .. Respondent
2 fa 687.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde Loni
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 698 OF 2026
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Ramdas Pandharinath Walake .. Respondent
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 700 OF 2026
Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Haribhau Ranu Walake .. Respondent
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 26.07.2023 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
3 fa 687.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde Loni
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 Loni Syed Mir, 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.
1 687/2026 121/2014 270 0.26R 18.12.2008 Rs. 860/- Rs. 2,047 per R.
per R
2 688/2026 122/2014 268 0.15R 18.12.2008 Rs. 860/- per Rs. 2,047 per R.
317 0.19R R
318 Rs. 1000/-
per R
0.11R Rs. 1000/-
per R
3 696/2026 123/2014 297 0.12R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1000 Rs. 2,047 per R.
per R
4 697/2026 125/2014 203 0.19R 18.12.2008 Rs. 860/- Rs. 2,047 per R.
per R
5 699/2026 129/2014 270 0.44R 18.12.2008 Rs. 860/- per Rs. 2,047 per R.
322 0.01R R
Rs. 1000/-
per R
6 698/2026 126/2014 323 0.16 R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1000/- Rs. 2,047 per R.
per R
7 700/2026 128/2014 270 0.17 R 18.12.2008 Rs. 860/- per Rs. 2,047 per R.
322 0.07 R R
Rs. 1000/-
per R
5. The lands of the respondents were acquired by preliminary
4 fa 687.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde Loni
notification issued on 18.12.2008. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer passed award on 15.05.2010 offering the rate ranging
from Rs. 860/- per R & Rs. 1000/- per R. Being aggrieved
respondents approached the Civil Court by preferring reference
petitions. The Reference Court enhanced the rate to Rs. 2,047/-
per R considering the lands as dry lands.
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 20 & 21 were relied upon.
The Reference Court found the sale instance at Exhibit 20 & 21
compatible. The Reference Court has adopted a reasonable and
practical approach in fixing the rate at Rs. 2,047/- per R. for dry
5 fa 687.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde Loni
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 ?
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.121 of
2014. The claimants produced sale deeds at Exhibit 20 and 21.
The lands in the sale instances at Exhibit 20 and 21 were from
village Loni Syed Mir. In the present matters lands from self
same village have been acquired. The Reference Court, therefore,
preferred to rely upon sale deeds at Exhibit 20 and Exhibit 21
for fixing the rate. Accordingly the rate is fixed at Rs. 2,047/- per
R for dry lands. I do not find any illegality in the rate fixed by
the Reference Court. The discretion has been exercised
judiciously and reasonably.
11. There is no reason to discard the rate. There is always
some element of guesswork in fixation of the probable market
6 fa 687.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde Loni
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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. It is made clear that dismissal of these Appeals preferred
7 fa 687.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde Loni
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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. For the reasons stated above, I do not find that there is any
perversity or illegality in the judgment and award passed by the
8 fa 687.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde Loni
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…