The Union of India, Thr the General Manager, C.R. Mumbai and Ors. vs Bhausaheb Ramchandra Bhogade

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:20027

¶2

1 fa 265.26 Adv. Shinde Sakat

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO. 265 OF 2026

¶5

Union of India through the General Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants Versus Arjun Chandrabhan Bhogade .. Respondent

¶6

AND

¶7

FIRST APPEAL NO. 273 OF 2026

¶8

Union of India through the General Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants Versus Shamrao Murlidhar Bhogade and others .. Respondents

¶9

AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 267 OF 2026

¶10

Union of India through the General Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants Versus Alkabai Bajirao Arune and others .. Respondents

¶11

AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 263 OF 2026

¶12

Union of India through the General Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants Versus Sampat Rajaram Bhogade Since deceased through his L.Rs. Hirabai Sampat Bhogade and others .. Respondents

¶13

AND

¶14

FIRST APPEAL NO. 268 OF 2026

¶15

Union of India through the General Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants

¶16

2 fa 265.26 Adv. Shinde Sakat

¶17

Versus Bhausaheb Ramchandra Bhogade .. Respondent

¶18

AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 271 OF 2026

¶19

Union of India through the General Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants Versus Anandrao Bhaktaji Bhogade and another.. Respondents

¶20

AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 266 OF 2026

¶21

Union of India through the General Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants Versus Jalindar Ramchandra Bhogade .. Respondent

¶22

AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 264 OF 2026

¶23

Union of India through the General Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants Versus Sushila Tukaram Bhogade .. Respondent

¶24

AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 269 OF 2026

¶25

Union of India through the General Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants Versus Kashinath Keru Bhogade .. Respondent

¶26

AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 274 OF 2026

¶27

Union of India through the General Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants

¶28

3 fa 265.26 Adv. Shinde Sakat

¶29

Versus

¶30

Ashok Laxman Bhogade .. Respondent

¶31

AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 272 OF 2026

¶32

Union of India through the General Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants

¶33

Versus Nandu Keru Bhogade Since deceased through his L.Rs. Shahabai Nandu Bhogade and another .. Respondents

¶34

AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 270 OF 2026

¶35

Union of India through the General Manager, Central Railway and others .. Appellants Versus Gowardhan Sahebrao Bhogade .. Respondent

¶36

Shri Ajay G. Talhar, D.S.G.I.for the Appellants in all matters. Shri Chandrakant K. Shinde and Ms. G. R. Jagtap, Advocates for the Respondents/ claimants in all matters.

¶37

CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 18TH APRIL, 2026.

¶38

FINAL ORDER :

¶39

. Taken up for final disposal with the consent of the parties.

¶40

The acquiring body has preferred these appeals against common judgment and award dated 09.09.20192 passed in group of Reference Petitions. The rate fixed by the Reference Court for the lands under acquisition and consequential quantum is under challenge. The evidence adduced before the Reference Court is

¶41

4 fa 265.26 Adv. Shinde Sakat

¶42

common, hence these appeals are decided by this common order.

¶43

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 Reference 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 Sakat, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed.

¶44

4. Following are the material particulars :

¶45

Sr. No.	First Appeal No.	L.A.R. No.	Gut No.	Area acquired	Date of Sec. 4 notification	Rate awarded by the SLAO	Rate the Cour	fixed by Reference t.
1	265/2026	48/2014	60	0.30R	09.09.2009	Rs. 850/- per R dry land	Rs. 2 R. dr	,161/-/- per y land.
2	273/2026	44/2014	50/1	1.30R	09.09.2009	Rs. 850/- per R dry land	Rs. 2 R. dr	,161/-/- per y land.
3	267/2026	45/2014	36	0.73r	09.09.2009	Rs. 735/- per R dry land	Rs. 2 R. dr	,161/-/- per y land.
4	263/2026	46/2014	59/2	0.49R	09.09.2009	Rs. 850/- per R dry land	Rs. 2 R. dr	,161/-/- per y land.
5	268/2026	47/2014	61/1	0.24R	09.09.2009	Rs. 850/- per R dry land	Rs. 2 R. dr	,161/-/- per y land.
6	271/2026	502014	50/1	0.45R	09.09.2009	Rs. 850/- per R dry land	Rs. 2 R. dr	,161/-/- per y land.
7	266/2026	51/2014	61/1	0.31R	09.09.2009	Rs. 850/- per R dry land	Rs. 2 R. dr	,161/-/- per y land.
8	264/2026	52/2014	59/1	0.14R	09.09.2009	Rs. 850/- per R dry land	Rs. 2 R. dr	,161/-/- per y land.
9	269/2026	53/2014	59/1	0.09R	09.09.2009	Rs. 850/- per R dry land	Rs. 2 R. dr	,161/-/- per y land.
10	St. 8831/2022	54/2014	50/1	1.30R	09.09.2009	Rs. 850/- per R dry land	Rs. 2 R. dr	,161/-/- per y land.

¶46

5 fa 265.26 Adv. Shinde Sakat

¶47

11	274/2026	55/2014	59/3	0.84R	09.09.2009	Rs. 850/- per R dry land	Rs. 2,161/-/- per R. dry land.
12	272/2026	56/2014	59/1	0.07R	09.09.2009	Rs. 850/- per R dry land	Rs. 2,161/-/- per R. dry land.
13	270/2026	57/2014	64/1	0.22R	09.09.2009	Rs. 850/- per R dry land	Rs. 2,161/-/- per R. dry land.

¶48

The lands of the respondents were acquired by preliminary notification U/Sec. 4 of the L. A. Act issued on 09.02.2009. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 26.03.2010 offering the rate of Rs. 850/- per R for dry land in Group – I and Rs. 735/- per R for Group II. Being aggrieved respondents approached the Civil Court by preferring reference petitions. The Reference Court enhanced the rate to Rs. 2,161/- per R for dry land.

¶49

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. 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.

¶50

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents – claimants supports the impugned judgment and award. It is

¶51

6 fa 265.26 Adv. Shinde Sakat

¶52

submitted that claimants – respondents have adduced oral and documentary evidence. The appellants did not adduce any oral evidence. The sale deeds at Exhibit Nos. 30 and 31. The Reference Court found the sale instance at Exhibit Nos. 30 and 31 compatible and preferred. The reference Court has also relied upon the award Exhibit 43 passed in L.A.R. No. 324 of 2006 and another award at Exhibit 51 passed in L.A.R. No. 364 of 2010. The Reference Court has adopted a reasonable and practical approach in fixing the rate at Rs. 2,161/- per R. for dry land.

¶53

I have considered rival submissions of the parties. I have formulated following points for determination.

¶54

I. Whether the enhancement granted by the Reference Court is liable to be quashed ?

¶55

II Whether the statutory benefits extended by the Reference Court are in accordance with law ?

¶56

The respondents adduced oral and documentary evidence. The appellants did not lead oral evidence.

¶57

Point No. I :

¶58

The evidence was led by the claimants in L.A.R. No. 48 of 2014. The claimants produced sale deeds at Exhibit Nos. 30 and 31, award at Exhibit 43 passed in L. A. R. No. 324 of 2006 and award at Exhibit 51 passed in L.A.R. No. 364 of 2010. The land in the sale instance at Exhibit No. 30 was from self same village.

¶59

7 fa 265.26 Adv. Shinde Sakat

¶60

The Reference Court, therefore, preferred to rely upon sale deed Exhibit 30 for fixing the rate. Accordingly the rate is fixed at Rs. 2,161/- per R for dry lands. I do not find any illegality in the rate fixed by the Reference Court. The discretion has been exercised judiciously and reasonably. The lands under acquisition are treated to be dry lands.

¶61

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 , reported in AIR 2011 SC 2458 which is rightly followed 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.

¶62

I answered point No. I against the appellants.

¶63

12. Point No. II

¶64

The claimants are granted benefits under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. The interest has been awarded in accordance with law laid down in State of Maharashtra V. Kailash Shiva Rangari reported in 2016(3) Mh.L.J. 457 . No case is made out by the appellants to show any fault or illegality in awarding statutory benefits and the interest.

¶65

I answered point No. II against the appellants.

¶66

8 fa 265.26 Adv. Shinde Sakat

¶67

It is made clear that dismissal of these Appeals preferred by the acquiring body would not bind any other claimants’ whose lands have been acquired for the self same project in claiming enhancement of the compensation by preferring independent Appeals or the Cross-Objections. Their claims for any further enhancement would be delt with in accordance with law and on the basis of the evidence produced on record.

¶68

It is further clarified that the counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants has made candid statement that his clients are unable to prefer any appeal or cross objection for enhancement in the High Court. They are precluded from claiming enhancement in future.

¶69

This Court had an occasion to deal with first appeals preferred by the self same acquiring body challenging judgments of the Reference Court arising out of self same purpose of acquisition. This Court dismissed the appeals by assigning elaborate reasons in the matter of t he Executive Engineer, Central Railway, Pune and others Vs. Subhash Narayan Gore and others in First Appeal No. 418 of 2026 with other connected matters vide judgment and order dated 10.04.2026 . I propose to follow the same course in upholding the judgments rendered by the Reference Court in the present matters also.

¶70

For the reasons stated above, I do not find that there is any

¶71

9 fa 265.26 Adv. Shinde Sakat

¶72

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 :

¶73

O R D E R

¶74

A. First Appeals are dismissed.

¶75

B. Award be drawn accordingly.

¶76

C. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶77

D. The amount deposited by the appellants – acquiring body shall be disbursed to the respondents – claimants with accrued interest as per their entitlement.

¶78

E. In case the amount is not deposited, appellants shall make the payment expeditiously.

¶79

[ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ]

¶80

bsb/April 26

The Union of India, Thr the General Manager, C.R. Mumbai and Ors. v. Bhausaheb Ramchandra Bhogade

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union of India, Thr the General Manager, C.R. Mumbai and Ors. v. Bhausaheb Ramchandra Bhogade

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

The Executive Engineer, Medium Project, Osmanabad and Others vs Malikarjun Chanmalappa Wakade

Premlata Badrinarayan Baheti vs the State of Maharashtra

Digambar Yeshwant Jadhav Died through Lrs Khandu Digambar Jadhav vs The State of Maharashtra Through the Collector Osmanabad

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division No. 1, Jalna. vs Maroti Bhika Kharat and Ors.

Ajay Suklal Devde vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Union of India through the General Manager Central Railway C.S.T. Mumbai. vs Maruti Rangnath Desai