Union of India & Ors. v. Arjun Chandrabhan Bhogade.. RespondentANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 273 OF 2026

1 fa 265.26 Adv. Shinde SakatIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADFIRST APPEAL NO. 265 OF 2026Union of India through the GeneralManager, Central Railway and others.. AppellantsVersusArjun Chandrabhan Bhogade.. RespondentANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 273 OF 2026Union of India through the GeneralManager, Central Railway and others.. AppellantsVersusShamrao Murlidhar Bhogade and others.. RespondentsANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 267 OF 2026Union of India through the GeneralManager, Central Railway and others.. AppellantsVersusAlkabai Bajirao Arune and others.. RespondentsANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 263 OF 2026Union of India through the GeneralManager, Central Railway and others.. AppellantsVersusSampat Rajaram BhogadeSince deceased through his L.Rs.Hirabai Sampat Bhogade and others.. RespondentsANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 268 OF 2026Union of India through the GeneralManager, Central Railway and others.. Appellants 2 fa 265.26 Adv. Shinde SakatVersusBhausaheb Ramchandra Bhogade.. RespondentANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 271 OF 2026Union of India through the GeneralManager, Central Railway and others.. AppellantsVersusAnandrao Bhaktaji Bhogade and another.. RespondentsANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 266 OF 2026Union of India through the GeneralManager, Central Railway and others.. AppellantsVersusJalindar Ramchandra Bhogade.. RespondentANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 264 OF 2026Union of India through the GeneralManager, Central Railway and others.. AppellantsVersusSushila Tukaram Bhogade.. RespondentANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 269 OF 2026Union of India through the GeneralManager, Central Railway and others.. AppellantsVersusKashinath Keru Bhogade.. RespondentANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 274 OF 2026Union of India through the GeneralManager, Central Railway and others.. Appellants 3 fa 265.26 Adv. Shinde SakatVersusAshok Laxman Bhogade.. RespondentANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 272 OF 2026Union of India through the GeneralManager, Central Railway and others.. AppellantsVersusNandu Keru BhogadeSince deceased through his L.Rs.Shahabai Nandu Bhogade and another.. RespondentsANDFIRST APPEAL NO. 270 OF 2026Union of India through the GeneralManager, Central Railway and others.. AppellantsVersusGowardhan Sahebrao Bhogade.. RespondentShri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I.for the Appellants in all matters.Shri Chandrakant K. Shinde and Ms. G. R. Jagtap, Advocates 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 againstcommon judgment and award dated 09.09.20192 passed in groupof Reference Petitions. The rate fixed by the Reference Court forthe lands under acquisition and consequential quantum is underchallenge. The evidence adduced before the Reference Court is 4 fa 265.26 Adv. Shinde Sakatcommon, hence these appeals are decided by this common order.3.Appellants have undertaken acquisition for laying downnew railway track from Ahmednagar – Beed – Parli. Lands fromvarious villages have been acquired, which resulted into filing ofvarious references. Those were decided by forming groups by theReference Court. The judgments passed by the Reference Courtsare subjected to challenge by the acquiring body as well as theclaimants in few of the matters. In the present group theclaimants have not preferred any cross objection or appeal. Thelands are from village Sakat, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed.4.Following are the material particulars :Sr.No.FirstAppealNo.L.A.R.No.GutNo.AreaacquiredDate of Sec.4notificationRate awardedby the SLAORate fixed bythe ReferenceCourt.1265/202648/2014600.30R09.09.2009Rs. 850/- per Rdry landRs. 2,161/-/- perR. dry land.2273/202644/201450/11.30R09.09.2009Rs. 850/- per Rdry landRs. 2,161/-/- perR. dry land.3267/202645/2014360.73r09.09.2009Rs. 735/- per Rdry landRs. 2,161/-/- perR. dry land.4263/202646/201459/20.49R09.09.2009Rs. 850/- per Rdry landRs. 2,161/-/- perR. dry land.5268/202647/201461/10.24R09.09.2009Rs. 850/- per Rdry landRs. 2,161/-/- perR. dry land.6271/202650201450/10.45R09.09.2009Rs. 850/- per Rdry landRs. 2,161/-/- perR. dry land.7266/202651/201461/10.31R09.09.2009Rs. 850/- per Rdry landRs. 2,161/-/- perR. dry land.8264/202652/201459/10.14R09.09.2009Rs. 850/- per Rdry landRs. 2,161/-/- perR. dry land.9269/202653/201459/10.09R09.09.2009Rs. 850/- per Rdry landRs. 2,161/-/- perR. dry land.10St.8831/202254/201450/11.30R09.09.2009Rs. 850/- per Rdry landRs. 2,161/-/- perR. dry land. 5 fa 265.26 Adv. Shinde Sakat11274/202655/201459/30.84R09.09.2009Rs. 850/- per Rdry landRs. 2,161/-/- perR. dry land.12272/202656/201459/10.07R09.09.2009Rs. 850/- per Rdry landRs. 2,161/-/- perR. dry land.13270/202657/201464/10.22R09.09.2009Rs. 850/- per Rdry landRs. 2,161/-/- perR. dry land.5.The lands of the respondents were acquired by preliminarynotification U/Sec. 4 of the L. A. Act issued on 09.02.2009. TheSpecial Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 26.03.2010offering the rate of Rs. 850/- per R for dry land in Group – I andRs. 735/- per R for Group II. Being aggrieved respondentsapproached the Civil Court by preferring reference petitions.The Reference Court enhanced the rate to Rs. 2,161/- per R fordry land. 6.Mr. Ajay Talhar, learned D. S. G. I. submits that ReferenceCourt committed error of jurisdiction in enhancing the ratewhich is not supported by adequate material. It is submittedthat S. L. A. O. had undertaken due procedure of law andinspection was done. The documents were collected to arrive atmarket rate. As against that the sale instances placed before theReference Court were incompatible. It is submitted thatconsidering the location and the potential of the lands underacquisition, the Reference Court erred in enhancing the rate.The Reference Court further committed illegality in grantingstatutory benefits of solatium and additional component.7.Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents– claimants supports the impugned judgment and award. It is 6 fa 265.26 Adv. Shinde Sakatsubmitted that claimants – respondents have adduced oral anddocumentary evidence. The appellants did not adduce any oralevidence. The sale deeds at Exhibit Nos. 30 and 31. TheReference Court found the sale instance at Exhibit Nos. 30 and31 compatible and preferred. The reference Court has also reliedupon the award Exhibit 43 passed in L.A.R. No. 324 of 2006 andanother award at Exhibit 51 passed in L.A.R. No. 364 of 2010.The Reference Court has adopted a reasonable and practicalapproach in fixing the rate at Rs. 2,161/- per R. for dry land. 8.I have considered rival submissions of the parties. I haveformulated following points for determination.I.Whether the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is liable to be quashed ?IIWhether 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. 48 of2014. The claimants produced sale deeds at Exhibit Nos. 30 and31, award at Exhibit 43 passed in L. A. R. No. 324 of 2006 andaward at Exhibit 51 passed in L.A.R. No. 364 of 2010. The landin the sale instance at Exhibit No. 30 was from self same village. 7 fa 265.26 Adv. Shinde SakatThe Reference Court, therefore, preferred to rely upon sale deedExhibit 30 for fixing the rate. Accordingly the rate is fixed at Rs.2,161/- per R for dry lands. I do not find any illegality in the ratefixed by the Reference Court. The discretion has been exercisedjudiciously and reasonably. The lands under acquisition aretreated to be dry lands. 11.There is no reason to discard the rate. There is alwayssome element of guesswork in fixation of the probable marketvalue. It is permissible to have guesstimate as explained by theHon’ble Apex Court in Trishala Jain V. State of Uttaranchal, reported inAIR 2011 SC 2458 which is rightly followed by the reference Court.The appellant has failed to make out any case to causeinterference in fixing the rate which is reasonable and akin tothe market value at the prevalent time.I answered point No. I against the appellants. 12.Point No. IIThe claimants are granted benefits under Section 23(1-A)of the Act. The interest has been awarded in accordance withlaw laid down in State of Maharashtra V. Kailash Shiva Rangari reportedin 2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457. No case is made out by the appellants toshow any fault or illegality in awarding statutory benefits andthe interest. I answered point No. II against the appellants. 8 fa 265.26 Adv. Shinde Sakat13.It is made clear that dismissal of these Appeals preferredby the acquiring body would not bind any other claimants’ whoselands have been acquired for the self same project in claimingenhancement of the compensation by preferring independentAppeals or the Cross-Objections. Their claims for any furtherenhancement would be delt with in accordance with law and onthe basis of the evidence produced on record.14.It is further clarified that the counsel appearing for therespondents/claimants has made candid statement that hisclients are unable to prefer any appeal or cross objection forenhancement in the High Court. They are precluded fromclaiming enhancement in future.15.This Court had an occasion to deal with first appealspreferred by the self same acquiring body challenging judgmentsof the Reference Court arising out of self same purpose ofacquisition. This Court dismissed the appeals by assigningelaborate reasons in the matter of the Executive Engineer,Central Railway, Pune and others Vs. Subhash NarayanGore and others in First Appeal No. 418 of 2026 with otherconnected matters vide judgment and order dated10.04.2026. I propose to follow the same course in upholding thejudgments rendered by the Reference Court in the presentmatters also.16.For the reasons stated above, I do not find that there is any 9 fa 265.26 Adv. Shinde Sakatperversity or illegality in the judgment and award passed by thereference Court. The Appeals preferred by the acquiring bodysans merit. Hence, I pass the following order :O R D E RA.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