907-FA-1642-2012.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 907 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1642 OF 2012 Nanded Waghala City Municipal Corporation Thr Commissioner VERSUS Gousiya Begum Sk Hasan@baba Miyan And Ors ... Mr. M. D. Narwadkar for the Appellant. Mr. Mahesh Ghatge for the Respondents (absent). ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 25 JUNE 2026 P. C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. By the present Appeal, the Appellant/acquiring body assails the judgment and award dated 27.03.2012, passed by learned Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division, Nanded in LAR No.753 of 2010 whereby the Reference Court granted enhanced compensation to the Respondents/Claimants along with other consequential benefits. 3. Mr. Narwadkar, leaned counsel for the Appellant/acquiring body 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 Shubham 907-FA-1642-2012.doc 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. 4. Though Respondent No.1-Original Claimant is served, none appeared for Respondent No.1-Original Claimant. 5. 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 accordance with law? The record reveals that the Respondent/Claimant has adduced oral as well as documentary evidence whereas the Appellant/acquiring body has not adduced either oral or documentary evidence. 6. As to point No.I :- The Respondent/Claimant has produced on record comparable sale instance as sale deeds at Exh.23. 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 Shubham 907-FA-1642-2012.doc 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. 7. 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 interference in fixing rate which is reasonable and akin to the market value at the relevant time. 8. 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 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. 9. 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 Shubham 907-FA-1642-2012.doc 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. 10. 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. No order as to costs. iii. The amount deposited, if any, by the Appellant/State be disbursed to the Respondent/Claimant with the accrued interest as per the entitlement of Respondent/Claimant. iv. In case the amount is not deposited, the Appellant/State shall pay the amount expeditiously. v. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.] Shubham