971-CA-9523-2011.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 971 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9523 OF 2011 IN FAST/14646/2011 The State Of Maharashtra And Ors VERSUS Venkat Jaywanta Pawar WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9524 OF 2011 IN FAST/14646/2011 The State Of Maharashtra And Ors VERSUS Venkat Jaywanta Pawar WITH FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 14646 OF 2011 The State Of Maharashtra And Ors VERSUS Venkat Jaywanta Pawar ... Mr. A. D. Wange, AGP for the Appellant/State. …. CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 25 JUNE 2026 P. C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. First Appeal No.14646 of 2011 is not on board. Taken on board. 3. By the present Appeal, the Appellant/State assail the judgment and award dated 11th February 2010, passed by learned Jt. Civil Judge Senior Shubham 2026:BHC-AUG:26302 971-CA-9523-2011.doc Division, Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad in LAR No.319 of 2004 whereby the Reference Court granted enhanced compensation to the Respondents/Claimants along with other consequential benefits. 4. Mr. Wange, leaned AGP for the Appellant/State submits that the Reference Court committed apparent error in enhancing the compensation which was not supported by adequate material. The SLAO had undertaken due procedure of law and appropriate inspection along with joint measurement was carried out before arriving at market value. The comparable sale instance relied upon by the Respondent/Claimant is incompatible. He further submits that considering the location and potential of land under acquisition, the Reference Court has grossly erred in enhancing the compensation. The Reference Court further committed error in granting statutory benefit of solatium, additional component and interest. Such enhancement has caused illegal burden on the public exchaquer. Therefore, he prays that the impugned award be set aside. 5. Though the sole Respondent is served, none appeared for the sole Respondent. 6. Upon considering the rival submissions, the following points for determination arose for reaching the conclusion: 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 Shubham 971-CA-9523-2011.doc accordance with law? The record reveals that the Respondent/Claimant has adduced oral as well as documentary evidence whereas the Appellant/State has not adduced either oral or documentary evidence. 7. As to point No.I :- The Respondent/Claimant has produced on record comparable sale instance as sale deed at Exh.21. The land in the said sale instance was from the same village as that of the land acquired in the present matter. Therefore, the learned Reference Court has rightly relied on the market value of the land in the said sale instance. The Reference Court has also considered reasonable increase in the market value after the date of execution of comparable sale instance till the passing of the impugned award by the SLAO. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Trishala Jain Vs. State of Uttaranchal (AIR 2011 SC 2458) has held that it is permissible to guess fixation of probable market value, which has been rightly followed by the Reference Court. The Appellant/State has failed to make out any case for intereference in fixing rate which is reasonable and akin to the market value at the relevant time. 9. It is noticed that enhancement granted by Reference Court is within four times than that of SLAO. Therefore, the matter is covered by Government Resolution No.Sankirna-2014/Prak.Kra.4/Bham-1/A-4 dated 3rd November 2016 with Corrigendum dated 23rd February 2017 and 13th Shubham 971-CA-9523-2011.doc August 2018 to the said Government Resolution. On that count also the enhancement needs to be upheld. Based on the above discussion I do not find any illegality in the enhancement of compensation by the Reference Court. Hence, I answer Point No.I in negative. 10. As to Point No.II:- The claimants have been granted statutory benefit such as 30% solatium under Section 23(2), 12% increase under Section 23(1-A), interest under Section 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 at the appropriate rate. The issue of interest is no more a res integra and is already covered the law laid down by Full Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari (2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457). Hence, no case is made out by the Appellant to show any fault or illegality in awarding statutory benefits and the interest. Hence, I answer Point No.II in negative. 11. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment and award. Hence, I pass the following order:- O R D E R i. First Appeal is dismissed. ii. Award be drawn accordingly. iii. No order as to costs. iv. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.] Shubham