Bombay High Court

India through The General Manager Central RailwayversusSaheba Rangnath Tarate and Anr

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SHAILESH P BRAHME

Holding

The High Court held that the Reference Court’s enhancement of compensation rates and award of statutory benefits were lawful, reasonable, and therefore the appeals were dismissed.

Summary

The Union of India, represented by the Central Railway, appealed against the rates of compensation fixed by a Reference Court for lands acquired for a new railway line in Beed district. The Reference Court had enhanced the compensation from Rs. 700 per R to Rs. 2,680 per R for Jirayat land and from Rs. 175 per R to Rs. 893 per R for Pot Kharab land based on sale deeds and market evidence. The appellants argued that the Reference Court lacked jurisdiction, that the enhancement was unsupported by material, and that statutory benefits such as solatium and interest were improperly awarded. The High Court examined whether the enhancement could be quashed and whether the statutory benefits complied with law, finding the Reference Court’s discretion exercised reasonably and in line with precedent. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, upheld the enhanced rates and statutory benefits, and ordered payment of the awarded amounts with interest to the claimants.

Issues considered

Whether the enhancement of compensation rates granted by the Reference Court is liable to be quashed
Whether the statutory benefits (including interest under Section 23(1-A)) awarded by the Reference Court are in accordance with law

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Act — s. 23(1-A)

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation enhancement
statutory benefits
solatium
interest under Section 23
reference court
appellate jurisdiction
market value estimation

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:21602

1 fa 819.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde, Doithan-II

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

FIRST APPEAL NO. 819 OF 2026

Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Dattu Sarjerao Tarate and anr. .. Respondents

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 818 OF 2026

Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Ankush Popat Tarate and others .. Respondents

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 821 OF 2026

Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Kailas Parmeshwar Tarate and others .. Respondents

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 820 OF 2026

Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
Shakuntala Balasaheb Tarate
and anr. .. Respondents

AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 822 OF 2026

Union of India through the General
Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants
Versus
2 fa 819.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde, Doithan-II

Saheba Rangnath Tarate and anr. .. Respondents

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I.for the Appellants in all matters.
Shri Shinde C.K., Advocate and Ms. G.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 06.05.2023 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
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 Doithan, Tq. Ashti Dist. Beed.
3 fa 819.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde, Doithan-II

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.
1 818/2026 151/2017 125/2 0.05 R 18.12.2008 Rs. 700/- Rs. 2680/- per
per R R. Jirayat
125/3 0.55 R Rs.700/- Rs. 893/- Per R.
per R Pot Kharab

2 821/2026 153/2017 127/2 0.27 R 18.12.2008 Rs.700/- per Rs. 2680/- per
R. R. Jirayat

3 820/2026 155/2017 128 48 R. 18.12.2008 Rs.700/- Rs. 2680/- per
per R R. Jirayat
0.01 R Rs.175/- Rs. 893/- Per R.
Pot per R Pot Kharab
Kharab

4 822/2026 158/2017 125/01 0.24 R 18.12.2008 Rs. 700/- Rs. 2680 per R.
per R Jirayat
5 819/2026 159/2017 127/01 1 H. 33 18.12.2008 Rs.700/- Rs. 2680/- per
R. per R R. Jirayat
0.02 R. Rs.175/- Rs. 893/- Per R.
Pot per R Pot Kharab
Kharab

5. The lands of the respondents were acquired by preliminary
notification issued on 18.12.2008. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer passed award on 24.12.2010 offering the rate of Rs. 700/-
per R. for Jirayat and Rs. 175/- per R. for Pot Kharab land.
Being aggrieved respondents approached the Civil Court by
preferring reference petitions. The Reference Court enhanced
the rate to Rs. 2680/- per R for Jirayat and Rs. 893/- per R. for
Pot Kharab land.

6. Mr. Ajay Talhar, learned D. S. G. I. submits that Reference
Court committed error of jurisdiction in enhancing the rate
4 fa 819.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde, Doithan-II

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 25 to 27 was relied upon.
The Reference Court found the sale instances at Exhibit 25 to
27 compatible. The Reference Court has adopted a reasonable
and practical approach in fixing the rate at Rs. 2680/- per R for
Jirayat and Rs. 893/- per R. for Pot Kharab 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 ?
5 fa 819.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde, Doithan-II

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. 159
of 2017. The claimants produced sale deeds at Exhibit 25 to
27. The lands in the sale instances at Exhibit 25 to 27 were
from village Doithan. In the present matters lands from self
same village have been acquired. The Reference Court, therefore,
preferred to rely upon sale deeds at Exhibit 25 to 27 for fixing
the rate. Accordingly the rate is fixed at Rs. 2680/- per R for
Jirayat and Rs. 893/- per R. for Pot Kharab 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, stone bund, pipeline, structure, farm
house, well etc. 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.
The appellant has failed to make out any case to cause
6 fa 819.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde, Doithan-II

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
Appeals or the Cross-Objections. Their claims for any further
7 fa 819.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde, Doithan-II

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 :

ORDER
8 fa 819.26 Adv. C.K. Shinde, Doithan-II

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…