Union Of India Through The General Manager Central Railway v. Janardhan S/O Devrao Pawar

2026:BHC-AUG:19766 1 fa 748.26 and fa 749.26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 748 OF 2026 Union of India through the General Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants

Versus

Sopan Sahebrao Pawar and others .. Respondents AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 749 OF 2026 Union of India through the General Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants

Versus

Janardhan Deorao Pawar .. Respondent Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I.for the Appellants in both matters. Shri Chandrakant C. Shinde and Ms. G. R. Jagtap, Advocates for the Respondents/claimants in both matters. CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

DATE : 18TH APRIL, 2026.

FINAL ORDER :

.

Taken up for final disposal with the consent of the parties. 3.

The acquiring body has preferred these appeals against distinct judgments and awards dated 10.08.2022 passed in two different 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

2 fa 748.26 and fa 749.26 this common order.

4.

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 Yetalwadi, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed. 5.

Following are the material particulars :

Sr.

No.

First Appeal No.

L.A.R.

No.

Gut No.

Area acquire d Date of Sec.

notification Rate awarded by the SLAO Rate fixed by the Reference Court.

748/2026 242/2016 0.28R 13.02.2009 Rs. 900/- per R Rs. 3,000/- per R.

749/2026 243/2016 0.18R 13.02.2009 Rs. 900/- per R Rs. 3,000/- per R.

6.

The lands of the respondents were acquired by preliminary notification issued on 13.02.2009. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 24.12.2010 offering the rate of Rs. 900/- per R. Being aggrieved respondents approached the Civil Court by preferring applications. The Court enhanced the rate to Rs. 3,000/- per R.

7.

Mr. Ajay Talhar, learned D. S. G. I. submits that Reference Court committed error of jurisdiction in enhancing the rate

3 fa 748.26 and fa 749.26 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. 8.

Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the respondents - claimants support the impugned judgment and award by adducing oral and documentary evidence. The appellants did not adduce any oral evidence. The sale deeds at Exhibits 14 and 15 were placed on record for claiming enhancement. Those are compatible. The Reference Court has adopted a reasonable and practical approach in fixing the rate at Rs. 3,000/- per R. for the acquired lands.

9.

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 ?

4 fa 748.26 and fa 749.26 10.

The respondents adduced oral and documentary evidence. The appellant did not lead oral evidence.

11.

Point No. I :

The claimants produced sale deed at Exhibit 14 dated 24.09.2008 and sale deed dated 15 dated 21.01.2006 on record. The land in the sale instance at Exhibit 14 was from Yetalwadi. In the present matters lands from self same village have been acquired. The Reference Court, therefore, preferred to rely upon sale deed at Exhibit 14 for fixing the rate. Accordingly the rate is fixed at Rs. 3,000/- per R. I do not find any illegality in the rate fixed by the Reference Court. The discretion has been exercised judiciously and reasonably.

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.

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

5 fa 748.26 and fa 749.26 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 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. 15.

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.

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

6 fa 748.26 and fa 749.26 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 reference Court. The Appeals preferred by the acquiring body sans merit. Hence, I pass the following order :

O R D E R

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