925-FA-2275-2013.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 925 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2275 OF 2013 The State Of Mah And Ors VERSUS Baburao Pandurang Pawar And Anr WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10179 OF 2010 IN FA/2275/2013 The State Of Mah And Ors VERSUS Baburao Pandurang Pawar And Anr ... Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP Appellant/State. Mr. Balasaheb Pawar for the Respondents (Absent). … CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 25 JUNE 2026 P. C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant. 2. By the present Appeal, the Appellants/State assail the judgment and award dated 24th November 2008, passed by learned Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division, Omerga in LAR No.830 of 2005 whereby the Reference Court granted enhanced compensation to the Respondents/Claimants along with other consequential benefits. 3. Mr. Korde, leaned AGP for the Appellant/State submits that the Reference Court committed apparent error in enhancing the compensation Shubham 2026:BHC-AUG:26297 925-FA-2275-2013.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 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 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 925-FA-2275-2013.doc instance as sale deeds at Exh.35. 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. 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 925-FA-2275-2013.doc 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. 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 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). iv. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.] Shubham