1 941-fa-2210-2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 2210 OF 2019 The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Project Division Jalna Thr G.M.I.D.C., Aurangabad VERSUS Devkarn Lakshman Padol And Ors ... Ms. Vaishali S. Swami h/f Mr. M. C. Swami, Advocate for Appellant Mr. B. V. Virdhe, AGP for Respondent-State Mr. R. J. Nirmal, Advocate for Respondent no.1/a to 1/d ….. CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATED : 21ST AUGUST, 2026 P.C. :- . Learned Advocate Mr. R. J. Nirmal for respondent nos.1a to 1d submits that the enhancement of compensation is governed by the Government Resolution dated 03.11.2016 and the corrigendum dated 23.02.2017. Referring to page nos.9 and 34 of the appeal compilation, he submits that the total amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is Rs.1,00,790/- whereas the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is Rs.3,26,613/-. He submits that the enhancement is evidently within four times the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and 2026:BHC-AUG:38208 2 941-fa-2210-2019 therefore, the First Appeal be disposed of in view of the Government policy. He submits that insofar as the interest part is concerned, there can be no dispute that the ratio laid down by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailas Shiva Rangari, reported in 2016 (4) ALL MR 513 is binding on the parties. 2. Learned Advocate for the appellant has no reason to discard this factual position. 3. Besides this, I have also considered the other grounds of appeal as are raised by the appellant. I find that the findings recorded by the Reference Court as regards to the objections are reasonable and do not suffer from any gross illegality for setting aside the impugned judgment and award. The legislation in question is beneficial in nature and the rights of the claimants must not be defeated on technical or hyper- technical grounds. 4. As observed above, the appeal is already covered by the Government Resolution and the corrigendum. In view of the said policy, the other grounds raised by the appellant in the appeal do not warrant interference of this Court. The compensation granted under all headings by the Reference 3 941-fa-2210-2019 Court cannot be said to be excessive and inordinate so as to warrant interference. Hence, on the other grounds also, I do not find that the appellant could sustain any objection in this appeal. Accordingly, First Appeal is partly allowed and disposed of. 5. Registry to calculate the interest payable to the claimants in view of the law laid down in the judgment of Kailas Shiva Rangari supra. ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ) Rushikesh/2026