1 fa 418.26 group railway appeals IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 922 FIRST APPEAL NO. 418 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3571 OF 2025 The Executive Engineer, Central Railway, Pune and others .. Appellants Versus Subhash Narayan Gore and others .. Respondents Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. Shri Ram B. Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4-A to 4-C and 5. AND 923 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3530 OF 2025 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Nagurao Raosaheb Rathod and another .. Respondents Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. Shri Shashikant E. Shekade, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. AND 924 FIRST APPEAL NO. 502 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7079 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Suryabhan Tabaji Waghule .. Respondent 2026:BHC-AUG:16015 2 fa 418.26 group railway appeals Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. WITH 924 FIRST APPEAL NO. 510 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7092 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Tukaram Pandurang Waghule .. Respondent Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. Ms. G. R. Jagtap and Shri C. K. Shinde, Advocate for the Respondent. WITH 924 FIRST APPEAL NO. 507 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7075 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Santosh Manik Sonwane .. Respondent Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. Shri Chandrakant K. Shinde, Advocate for the Respondent. WITH 924 FIRST APPEAL NO. 506 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7073 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus 3 fa 418.26 group railway appeals Uttam Sadhu Waghule .. Respondent Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. Ms. G. R. Jagtap and Shri C. K. Shinde, Advocate for the Respondent. WITH 924 FIRST APPEAL NO. 503 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7077 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Shivaji Babu Waghmare .. Respondent Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. WITH 924 FIRST APPEAL NO. 504 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7082 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Deorao Babu Waghmare .. Respondent Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. WITH 924 FIRST APPEAL NO. 505 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7095 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants 4 fa 418.26 group railway appeals Versus Dwarkabai Sakharam Dhodge .. Respondent Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. WITH 924 FIRST APPEAL NO. 508 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7088 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Murlidhar Sadhu Waghule .. Respondent Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. WITH 924 FIRST APPEAL NO. 509 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7085 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Bhau Babu Waghmare .. Respondent Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. AND 925 FIRST APPEAL NO. 511 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7197 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus 5 fa 418.26 group railway appeals Ajinath Changu Jadhav and others .. Respondents Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. WITH 925 FIRST APPEAL NO. 513 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7189 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Subhash Rangnath Waghule .. Respondent Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. Shri Chandrakant K. Shinde and Ms. G. R. Jagtap, Advocate for the Respondent. WITH 925 FIRST APPEAL NO. 514 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7191 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Babasaheb Bhau Waghule .. Respondent Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. Shri Chandrakant K. Shinde and Ms. Jagtap, Advocate for the Respondent. WITH 925 FIRST APPEAL NO. 515 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7195 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General 6 fa 418.26 group railway appeals Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Nana Sona Jadhav and another .. Respondents Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. Shri Chandrakant K. Shinde and Ms. Jagtap, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. WITH 925 FIRST APPEAL NO. 517 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7199 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Ramdas Rangnath Waghule .. Respondent Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. Shri Chandrakant K. Shinde and Ms. Jagtap, Advocate for the Respondent. WITH 925 FIRST APPEAL NO. 518 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7187 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Dnyandeo Vitthal Waghule .. Respondent Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. Shri Chandrakant K. Shinde and Ms. Jagtap, Advocate for the Respondent. WITH 7 fa 418.26 group railway appeals 925 FIRST APPEAL NO. 519 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7183 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Bajirao Pandurang Waghule .. Respondent Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. Shri Chandrakant K. Shinde and Ms. Jagtap, Advocate for the Respondent. WITH 925 FIRST APPEAL NO. 512 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7193 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Mohan Baburao Gaykwad .. Respondent Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. WITH 925 FIRST APPEAL NO. 516 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7185 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Anant Hari Gawhale .. Respondent Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. 8 fa 418.26 group railway appeals WITH 925 FIRST APPEAL NO. 520 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7181 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Kishan Sadu Sonwane and others .. Respondents Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. AND 926 FIRST APPEAL NO. 590 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7054 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Baban Rangnath Waghule .. Respondent Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. AND 927 FIRST APPEAL NO. 591 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7046 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Deorao Kondiba Jadhav .. Respondent Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. AND 9 fa 418.26 group railway appeals 928 FIRST APPEAL NO. 592 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7028 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Namdeo Sakharam Dhadage and another .. Respondents Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. Ms. G. R. Jagtap and Shri C. K. Shinde, Advocates for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. AND 929 FIRST APPEAL NO. 593 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7030 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Dhondiba Dagadu Shelar .. Respondent Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. AND 930 FIRST APPEAL NO. 594 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7032 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Digambar Vitthal Waghule .. Respondent Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. 10 fa 418.26 group railway appeals Shri C. K. Shinde and Ms. G. R. Jagtap, Advocates for the Respondent No. 1. AND 931 FIRST APPEAL NO. 595 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7034 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Trimbak Pandurang Waghule .. Respondent Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. AND 932 FIRST APPEAL NO. 596 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7048 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Vishnu Sitaram Gaykawad .. Respondent Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. AND 933 FIRST APPEAL NO. 597 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7036 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Devidas Bhanudas Waghule .. Respondent 11 fa 418.26 group railway appeals Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. AND 934 FIRST APPEAL NO. 598 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7050 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Subhash Sadhu Waghule .. Respondent Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. Shri Chandrakant K. Shinde and Ms. G. R. Jagtap, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. AND 935 FIRST APPEAL NO. 599 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7052 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Sahebrao Waman Jadhav .. Respondent Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. AND 936 FIRST APPEAL NO. 600 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7038 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Baban Rangnath Waghule .. Respondent 12 fa 418.26 group railway appeals Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. AND 937 FIRST APPEAL NO. 601 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7040 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Bhau Sawala Jadhav Since deceased through his L.Rs. Housabai and others .. Respondents Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. AND 938 FIRST APPEAL NO. 602 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7044 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Mahadeo Dhondiba Jadhav and others .. Respondent Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. Shri Chandrakant K. Shinde and Ms. G. R. Jagtap, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. AND 939 FIRST APPEAL NO. 603 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7042 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai 13 fa 418.26 group railway appeals and others .. Appellants Versus Bandu Kondiba Jadhav .. Respondent Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. AND 940 FIRST APPEAL NO. 630 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 935 OF 2024 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8905 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Ganpat Mansiram Jadhav .. Respondent Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. WITH 940 FIRST APPEAL NO. 632 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 933 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Narayan Kisan Jadhav Since deceased through his L.Rs. Parmeshwar and others .. Respondents Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. Shri Chandrakant K. Shinde and Ms. G. R. Jagtap, Advocate for the Respondents. WITH 940 FIRST APPEAL NO. 631 OF 2026 14 fa 418.26 group railway appeals WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 943 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Kusumbai Anant Gavhale .. Respondent Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. WITH 940 FIRST APPEAL NO. 633 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 941 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Vitthal Kishan Jadhav Since deceased through his L.Rs. Kaushalya and others .. Respondents Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. WITH 940 FIRST APPEAL NO. 634 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 945 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Sanjanabai Babasaheb Kanase .. Respondent Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. WITH 15 fa 418.26 group railway appeals 940 FIRST APPEAL NO. 635 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 931 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Mahadeo Kisan Jadhav .. Respondent Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. WITH 940 FIRST APPEAL NO. 636 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 947 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Ramdas Parbhati Jadhav and another .. Respondents Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. WITH 940 FIRST APPEAL NO. 637 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 929 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Kundlik Pandurang Waghule .. Respondent Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. WITH 940 FIRST APPEAL NO. 638 OF 2026 16 fa 418.26 group railway appeals WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 939 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Kamalbai Parasram Waghmare .. Respondent Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. WITH 940 FIRST APPEAL NO. 639 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13300 OF 2024 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 937 OF 2024 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8915 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Yadav Tulsiram Shelar Since deceased through his L.Rs. Chandrabhagabai and others .. Respondents Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. WITH 940 FIRST APPEAL NO. 640 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 927 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Vishwanath Dhondiba Jadhav .. Respondent 17 fa 418.26 group railway appeals Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. AND 941 FIRST APPEAL NO. 743 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3579 OF 2025 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Kalyan Dattatraya Gore and others .. Respondents Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. Shri Ram B. Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. WITH 941 FIRST APPEAL NO. 741 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3577 OF 2025 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Gorakh Gangaram Waghule and others .. Respondents Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. Shri Ram B. Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. WITH 941 FIRST APPEAL NO. 742 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3573 OF 2025 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai 18 fa 418.26 group railway appeals and others .. Appellants Versus Satish Kundlik Gore Since deceased through his L.Rs. Anita Satish Gore and others .. Respondents Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. Shri Ram B. Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. WITH 941 FIRST APPEAL NO. 740 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3575 OF 2025 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Ambadas Mahadeo Waghule Since deceased through his L.Rs. Kalinda and others .. Respondents Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. Shri Ram B. Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. AND 942 FIRST APPEAL NO. 781 OF 2026 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13652 OF 2024 Union of India, thorugh the General Manager, Central Railway, Mumbai and others .. Appellants Versus Eknath Bhanudas Waghule Since deceased through his L.Rs. Navnath and others .. Respondents 19 fa 418.26 group railway appeals Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I. for the Appellants. Shri Chandrakant C. Shinde and Ms. G. R. Jagtap, Advocates for the Respondent Nos. 1.1 to 1.3 and 1.5 to 1.8. CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 10TH APRIL, 2026. FINAL ORDER : . Heard both sides finally. 2. The acquiring body has preferred these appeals against common judgment and award dated 09.10.2023 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,762/- per R to the claimants – respondents, which is stated to be exorbitant and unreasonable. 3. Appellants have undertaken acquisition for laying down new railway track from Ahmednagar – Beed – Parli. Lands from various villages have been acquired, which resulted into filing of various references. Those were decided by forming groups by the Reference Court. The judgments passed by the Courts are subjected to challenge by the acquiring body as well as the claimants in few of the matters. In the present group the claimants have not preferred any cross objection or appeal. The lands are from village Sheri (Bk), Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed. 4. Following are the material particulars : 20 fa 418.26 group railway appeals Sr. No. First Appeal No. L.A.R. No. Gut No. Area acquire d Date of Sec. 4 notification Rate awarded by the SLAO Rate fixed by the Reference Court. 1 418/2026 684/2014 75 0.30R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 2 3530/2025 235/2018 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 3 502/2026 190/2014 26/2 0.46R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 4 510/2026 172/2014 73 0.29R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 5 507/2026 166/2014 26/1 0.15R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 6 506/2026 163/2014 79 0.10R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 7 503/2026 188/2014 31 0.42R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 8 504/2026 737/2014 31 0.21R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 9 505/2026 740/2017 46 0.13R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 10 508/2026 169/2014 69 0.30R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 5,738/- per R Bagayat 11 509/2026 176/2014 31 0.10R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 12 511/2026 184/2014 30 0.15R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 5,738/- per R Bagayat 13 513/2026 170/2014 27 0.16R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 21 fa 418.26 group railway appeals 14 514/2026 185/2014 34 0.03R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 15 515/2026 182/2014 30 0.24R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 16 517/2026 171/2014 27 0.11R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 17 518/2026 168/2014 73 0.23R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 18 519/2026 167/2014 73 0.29R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 5,738/- per R. Bagayat 19 512/2026 179/2014 16 0.21R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 20 516/2026 187/2014 16 0.06R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 5,738/- per R. Bagayat 21 520/2026 196/2014 71 2.36R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 22 590/2026 164/2014 25/3 26/1 0.07R 0.22R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 23 591/2026 193/2014 17 0.24R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 5,738/- per R. Bagayat 24 592/2026 739/2017 46 0.29R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 5,738/- per R. Bagayat 25 593/2026 195/2014 115/1 0.24R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 26 594/2026 197/2014 73 0.16R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 22 fa 418.26 group railway appeals 27 595/2026 198/2014 73 0.32R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 5,738/- per R. Bagayat 28 596/2026 931/2017 115/4/ 44 111/5/ 44 0.01R 0.20R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 29 597/2026 199/2014 27 0.15R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 5,738/- per R. Bagayat 30 598/2026 178/2014 79 0.24R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 5,738/- per R. Bagayat 31 599/2026 165/2014 30 0.08R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 32 600/2026 200/2014 27 0.06R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 33 601/2026 194/2014 16 0.06R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 34 602/2026 189/2014 17 0.30R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 35 603/2026 180/2014 16 0.05R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 36 630/2026 173/2014 16 0.02R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 37 632/2026 204/2014 111/4 0.21R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 38 631/2026 192/2014 16 0.65R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 39 633/2026 186/2014 111/3 177/4 0.11R 0.29R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 23 fa 418.26 group railway appeals 40 634/2026 202/2014 117/1 0.02R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 41 635/2026 203/2014 111/3, 117/4 0.15R 0.07R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 42 636/2026 183/2014 112/10 112/10 0.04R 0.29.50 R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 43 637/2026 201/2014 73 0.25R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 44 638/2026 181/2014 16 0.26R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 45 639/2026 177/2014 115/1/ 44 0.16R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 46 640/2026 191/2014 111/2 111/09 111/10 116/06 111/5 0.09R 0.08R 0.42R 0.09R 0.17R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 47 743/2026 682/2014 75/1 74 0.09R 0.07R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 48 741/2026 683/2014 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 49 742/2026 1014/201 7 75 0.15R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 50 740/2026 685/2014 79 0.42R 0.43R 18.12.2008 Rs. 13 00/- - per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 51 781/2026 735/2017 27 0.09R 18.12.2008 Rs. 1200/- - I Rs. 1300/- - II Rs. 1400/- - III per R Rs. 4,762/- per R. Jirayat 5. The lands of the respondents were treated to be irrigated lands. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (for the sake of brevity and convenience hereinafter referred as to the “S.L.A.O.”) 24 fa 418.26 group railway appeals offered rate ranging from Rs. 1,150/- to 1,350/- per R. Award was passed on 20.07.2010. The rate is enhanced to Rs. 4,762/- per R by the Reference Court. The possession was taken on 09.07.2010. The group is decided by the Reference Court referring to papers of L. A. R. No. 684 of 2014. 6. Mr. Ajay Talhar, learned D. S. G. I. submits that Reference Court committed error of jurisdiction in enhancing the rate which is not supported by adequate material. It is submitted that S.L.A.O. had undertaken due procedure of law and inspection was done. The documents were collected to arrive at market rate. As against that the sale instances placed before the Reference Court were incompatible. The reliance on the rate fixed in L. A. R. No. 191 of 2014 is arbitrary and illegal. It is submitted that considering the location and the potential of the lands under acquisition, the Reference Court erred in enhancing the rate. The Reference Court further committed illegality in granting statutory benefits of solatium and additional component. 7. Per contra, learned counsels appearing for the respondents – claimants support the impugned judgment and award. They would submit that on the ground of parity the Reference Court cautiously adopted the rate given in L.A.R. No. 191 of 2014 after considering relevant aspects of the matter. It is further submitted that when the sale instance at Exhibit 39 was treated to be compatible, the deduction of 70% was unreasonable. In 25 fa 418.26 group railway appeals fact, the claimants are entitled to receive more rate than awarded by the Reference Court, but they have not preferred any appeal due to precarious financial condition. The statutory benefits awarded by the Reference Court cannot be faulted with. 8. I have considered rival submissions of the parties. I have formulated following points for determination. 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 ? 9. The respondents adduced oral and documentary evidence. The evidence adduced in L.A.R. No. 684 of 2014 was taken into account. The lands from village Sheri Budruk were acquired for new railway line. The preliminary notification under section 04 of the L. A. Act was issued on 18.12.2008. Respondents relied on sale deed dated 07.08.2002 at Exhibit 35 and 02.02.2000 at Exhibit 39. They also produced on record common judgment dated 23.11.2022 passed in LAR No. 191 of 2014. The appellant did not adduce any oral evidence but only relied upon the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. 10. Point No. I : The respondents / claimants have produced evidence on record to show that the lands acquired are irrigated lands. The 26 fa 418.26 group railway appeals oral evidence is corroborated by 7 / 12 extract showing crop pattern. Appellant did not challenge the classification of the land. Therefore, it can be safely treated that the lands under acquisition are bagayat lands. 11. The reference Court was conscious of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Chimanlal Hargovinddas Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, and others reported in MANA/SC/0071/1988 laying down that the award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not a judgment of the trial Court but it is merely an offer of the rates. The proceedings before the reference Court are original in nature and it would be open for the parties to lead evidence before it. The judgment of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, Mumbai Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2009(2) All MR 270 was also taken into account for determining the probable market value of the land under acquisition. It further reveals that the ratio laid down in Meharwal Khewalji Trust, Faridkot and others V. State of Punjab and others reported in AIR 2012 SC 2721 was kept in mind which shows that the highest rate of the sale exemplar if it is bona fide and akin to the nature of the land needs, is to be accepted. 12. Two sale instances are produced on record. The preliminary notification was issued on 18.12.2008. The rate in the sale exemplar at Exhibit 35 was Rs.9,000/- per R and in case of Exhibit 39, Rs.10,000/- per R. The rate in Exhibit 39 was closer to the approximate market value of the acquired land 27 fa 418.26 group railway appeals because in that case 20 R of dry land was sold. Whereas the lands under acquisition are bagayat lands. The reference Court deducted 70% because there was difference in the lands under acquisition and the land in the sale exemplar considering the location and potentiality. It is vulnerable. The respondents did not claim any enhancement by challenging the findings in respect of the rate fixed by the reference Court. Hence, it is not necessary to examine as to whether the respondents / claimants are entitled to more amount than fixed by the reference Court. 13. The reference Court fixed the rate on the basis of common judgment dated 23.11.2022 passed in LAR No. 191 of 2014. I have gone through a copy of the judgment. In that case also, lands from village Sheri stood acquired for new railway line. The sale example which is at Exhibit 39 dated 02.02.2000 and further two sale instances were pressed into service. The sale instance dated 02.02.2000 was accepted and rate of Rs.4,762/- was arrived at. There is room to say that considering the sale exempler, more rate could have been fixed but in the absence of any challenge by the respondents / claimants, the exercise is unwarranted in the present case. 14. It further reveals from record that in couple of matters reliance is placed on the judgment dated 23.11.2022 passed in L.A.R. No. 205 of 2014 fixing the rate at Rs. 4,762/- per R for dry land and Rs. 5,738/- per R for irrigated land. The judgment passed in L.A.R. No. 191 of 2014 and L.A.R. No. 205 of 2024 have 28 fa 418.26 group railway appeals not been challenged by either of the parties. Those are conclusive and final. Therefore, the Reference Court is justified in adopting rate of Rs. 4,762/- per R for dry land. 15. The reference Court accepted rate of Rs.4,762/- per R, by adopting the rate from LAR No. 191 of 2014. The discretion has been exercised judiciously and reasonably. There is no reason to discard the rate. There is always some element of guesswork in fixation of the probable market value. It is permissible to have guesstimate as explained by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Trishala Jain V. State of Uttaranchal, which is rightly followed by the reference Court. I do not find any illegality in fixing the rate by the reference Court. The appellant has failed to make out any case to cause interference in fixing the rate which is reasonable and akin to the market value at the prevalent time. 16. Point No. II The reference Court has assigned reason for not granting interest under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. The possession was taken from the claimants on 29.07.2010 immediately after passing of the award on 20.07.2010. It is admitted by the respondents that the notice under section 12(2) was issued on 28.07.2010. The claimants are entitled to get interest U/Sec 28 of the L. A. Act. I find that no illegality is committed by the reference Court in awarding the interest. Needless to state that respondents are entitled to receive interest in view of State of Maharashtra V. Kailash Shiva Rangari reported in 29 fa 418.26 group railway appeals 2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457. 17. The claimants are entitled to receive benefit U/Sec. 23(1- A) of the L. A. Act, which is rightly awarded by the Reference Court. No case is made out by the appellant as to how the statutory benefits including interest are not in accordance with law. 18. It is made clear that dismissal of these Appeals preferred by the acquiring body would not bind any other the claimants’ whose lands have been acquired for the selfsame project in claiming enhancement of the compensation by preferring independent Appeals or the Cross-Objections. Their claim for any further enhancement would be dealt with in accordance with law and on the basis of the evidence produced on record. 19. It is further clarified that the counsels appearing for the respondents/claimants have made candid statement that their clients are unable to prefer any appeal or cross objection for enhancement in the High Court. They are precluded from claiming enhancement in future. 20. For the reasons stated above, I do not find that there is any perversity or illegality in the judgment and award passed by the reference Court. The Appeals preferred by the acquiring body sans merit. Hence, I pass the following order : 30 fa 418.26 group railway appeals O R D E R A. First Appeals are dismissed. B. Award be drawn accordingly. C. There shall be no order as to costs. D. The amount deposited by the appellants – acquiring body shall be disbursed to the respondents – claimants with accrued interest as per their entitlement. E. In case the amount is not deposited, appellants shall make the payment expeditiously. F. All pending civil applications for stay stand disposed of. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ] bsb/April 26