926-FA-2344-2013.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 926 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2344 OF 2013 The State Of Mah And Ors VERSUS Raosaheb Umaji Kadam And Ors WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11004 OF 2010 IN FA/2344/2013 The State Of Mah And Ors VERSUS Raosaheb Umaji Kadam And Ors ... Mr. S. A. Gaikwad, AGP for the Appellant/State. Mr. Dattatraya Jayabhar 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 Appellants/State assail the judgment and award dated 21st March 2009, passed by learned Principal District Judge, Beed in LAR No.124 of 2007 whereby the Reference Court granted enhanced compensation to the Respondents/Claimants along with other consequential benefits. 3. Mr. Gaikwad, leaned AGP for the Appellant/State submits that the Reference Court committed apparent error in enhancing the compensation Shubham 2026:BHC-AUG:26342 926-FA-2344-2013.doc 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 instances 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 exchequer. Therefore, he prays that the impugned award be set aside. 4. None appears for the Respondents. 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/State has not adduced either oral or documentary evidence. 6. As to point No.I :- The Respondent/Claimant has produced on record comparable sale Shubham 926-FA-2344-2013.doc instances as sale deeds which are of the year in between 1995 and 1998. The land in the said sale instances were 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 instances. The Reference Court has also considered reasonable increase in the market value after the date of execution of comparable sale instances 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% Shubham 926-FA-2344-2013.doc solatium under Section 23(2), 12% increase under Section 23(1-A), interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 at the appropriate rate. The issue regarding grant of interest under Section 34 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). The learned Reference Court has granted interest under Section 34 from the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 i.e. 23rd March 2000 which is not in accordance with the abovesaid ruling. Hence, no case is made out by the Appellant to show any fault or illegality in awarding statutory benefits except with respect to the interest part under Section 34. Hence, I answer Point No.II partly in affirmative. 10. For the reasons stated above, I am inclined to modify the impugned judgment and award. Hence, I pass the following order:- O R D E R i. First Appeal is partly allowed. ii. The amount of compensation receivable under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act be calculated from the date of award passed by Land Acquisition Officer as enunciated by Full Bench of this Court in Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra). iii. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.] Shubham