1 of 4 10-FA.253.2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 10 FIRST APPEAL NO. 253 OF 2013 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MEDIUM PROJECT DIVISION JALGAON VERSUS ASHOK LAXMAN SONAR AND ANR ... Mr. Subhash S. Chillarge and Ms. Chaitali R. Kutti Choudhary, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for Respondent-State. ... AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 1837 OF 2010 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MEDIUM PROJECT DIVISION VERSUS MATHURABAI TRYAMBAK PATIL (DIED) LRS RAMESH TRYAMBAK PATIL AND ORS … Mr. Subhash S. Chillarge and Ms. Chaitali R. Kutti Choudhary, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for Respondent-State. Mr. Ajeet B. Kale, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 6. AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6809 OF 2011 IN FA/253/2013 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MEDIUM PROJECT DIVISION JALGAON VERSUS ASHOK LAXMAN SONAR AND ANR … Mr. Subhash S. Chillarge, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for Respondent-State. AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 1836 OF 2010 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MEDIUM PROJECT DIVISION VERSUS SHANTABAI PUNDLIK PANDHARE AND ANR 2026:BHC-AUG:26283 2 of 4 10-FA.253.2013 … Mr. Subhash S. Chillarge and Ms. Chaitali R. Kutti Choudhary, Advocate for Appellant. Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for Respondent-State. Mr. Ajeet B. Kale, Advocate for Respondent No.1. AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6927 OF 2011 IN FA/1837/2010 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MEDIUM PROJECT DIVISION VERSUS MATHURABAI TRYAMBAK PATIL (DIED) LRS RAMESH TRYAMBAK PATIL AND ORS … Mr. Subhash S. Chillarge, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for Respondent-State. AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6929 OF 2011 IN FA/1836/2010 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MEDIUM PROJECT DIVISION VERSUS SHANTABAI PUNDLIK PANDHARE AND ANR … Mr. Subhash S. Chillarge, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for Respondent-State. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 2nd JULY, 2026 P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant/State. 2. By this appeal, the appellant assail the Judgment and award dated 05.03.2010 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Jalgaon/Reference Court in L.A.R. Nos.1804/1998, 1797/1998 and 1800/1998. 3 of 4 10-FA.253.2013 3. Both the learned Advocates submit that the compensation enhanced by the learned Reference Court does not exceed four times the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. 4. In view of the aforesaid submissions and having regard to the policy decision of the State Government contained in Government Resolution No.Sankirna-2014/Prak.Kra.4/Bham-1/A-4 dated 03.11.2016 with Corrigendum dated 23.02.2017 and 13.08.2018 to the said Government Resolution, took a decision not to challenge the reference, if compensation is enhanced only upto four times. 5. Therefore, I do not find any reason to intervene with the impugned order with respect to quantum of compensation, but in respect of grant of interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, I am inclined to grant the same from the date of award in view of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari, reported in 2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457. Hence, I pass the following order:- ORDER (i) The present Appeals are partly allowed. (ii) The Claimants shall be entitled to interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 from the date of award as per Kailash Shiva Rangari (supra). 4 of 4 10-FA.253.2013 (iii) The Claimants are at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited by the State/acquiring body before the learned Reference Court, if any. (iv) In view of disposal of the Appeals, pending Civil Applications, if any, do not survive and are disposed of accordingly. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef