1 of 6 933-CA.8561.2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 933 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8561 OF 2017 IN FAST/5067/2015 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VERSUS POPAT NANABHAU UGHADE DIED THR HIS LRS LATA AND ORS ... Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for the Appellant-State. ... AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5235 OF 2015 IN FAST/5067/2015 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VERSUS POPAT NANABHAU UGHADE AND ORS … Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for the Appellant-State. AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5237 OF 2015 IN FAST/5067/2015 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VERSUS POPAT NANABHAU UGHADE AND ORS … Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for the Appellant-State. … AND FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.5067 OF 2015 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VERSUS POPAT NANABHAU UGHADE AND ORS CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 2nd JULY, 2026 Tauseef 2026:BHC-AUG:26692 2 of 6 933-CA.8561.2017 P.C.:- CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8561 OF 2017:- 1. By this application, the Applicants are seeking condonation of delay of 2844 days in bringing the legal heirs of Respondent No.1- Popat Nanabhau Ughade on record. 2. Considering the averments made in the application, the application is allowed. Amendment be carried out forthwith. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5235 OF 2015:- 3. By this application, the Applicants are seeking condonation of delay of 1095 days in filing first appeal. 4. Considering the averments made in the application, the application is allowed. FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO.5067 OF 2015:- 5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 6. By the present Appeal, the Appellants/State assails the judgment and award dated 30.08.2011 passed by learned Reference Court in LAR No.208 of 1993, whereby the compensation granted by the SLAO came to be enhanced. 7. Mr. B. A. Shinde, 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 Tauseef 3 of 6 933-CA.8561.2017 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 Respondents/Claimants are 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. 8. None appears for the Respondents/Claimants, though served. 9. 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? 10. The record reveals that the Respondents/Claimants have adduced oral as well as documentary evidence whereas the Appellant/State has not adduced either oral or documentary evidence. As to point No.I :- 11. The Respondents/Claimants have produced certificate Tauseef 4 of 6 933-CA.8561.2017 copies of evidence in LAR Nos.364/1993, 136/1992 and 234/1992, 238/1992 along with certified copy of judgment delivered therein to contend that the market value for their acquired land be calculated on the basis of compensation granted in those references. The learned Reference Court has taken into consideration the fertility, potentiality and quality of the land acquired. It has further recorded finding upon consideration of record before it that the land acquired was Jirayat land and, therefore, it deducted 50% amount from the market value assigned to the land in the above said references. Upon calculation, the learned Reference Court reached to the conclusion that the market value of the land acquired would be Rs.45,000/- per Hector. 12. 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. 13. 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. As to Point No.II:- 14. The claimants have been granted statutory benefit such as Tauseef 5 of 6 933-CA.8561.2017 30% 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 taking possession i.e. 16.07.1986 which is not in accordance with the above said 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. 15. 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) and to that extent Clause (3)(ii) of the operative part of order of learned Reference Court stands modified. Tauseef 6 of 6 933-CA.8561.2017 (iii) Rest of the order of the learned Reference Court stands unaltered. (iv) Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef