Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
47 judgments · newest first · showing 1–47
The Executive Engineer (Acquiring Body) filed several First Appeals challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by a Reference Court to various landowners under the Maharashtra Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court had enhanced the compensation from the State Level Award Officer's rate of …
The appellants challenged the award of compensation for land acquired from Bhokar village for the Bhokar Turn‑Road Main State Highway No.2. They argued that their case was identical to a prior appeal (First Appeal No.632 of 2010) decided by this Court on 1 September 2026. The Court accepted that the …
The claimants' lands in Udatpur village were acquired under a Section 4 notification dated 07‑04‑1994 for the rehabilitation of earthquake‑affected persons, with an original award of Rs 17,300 per hectare later enhanced to Rs 4,000 per R by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The claimants sought …
The appellants challenged the award of compensation dated 24‑12‑2010 in a land acquisition case for semi‑irrigated land in Karli village, Nandurbar. The court noted that the issues were identical to those decided in First Appeal No.3074 of 2013, which it had already decided. Accordingly, the appeal …
The appellants challenged the compensation awarded for lands acquired for the Nimmna Dudhana project, arguing that the rate of Rs.1500 per are for jirayat land and Rs.750 per are for pot kharab land was too low. They sought enhancement to Rs.2400 per are on the ground of parity with a prior judgment …
The appellants, heirs of several deceased landowners, challenged the compensation awarded by the Reference Court for Jirayat and pot kharab lands acquired for the Nimmna Dudhana project in Jalna district. They claimed a higher compensation rate of Rs.2400 per Are on the ground of parity with an …
The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, heard a group of first appeals challenging the compensation awarded for lands acquired in Kedarwakadi village for the "Nimmna Dudhana" project. The appellants, members of the KavaLe family, sought enhancement of the compensation rate from Rs.1500 per Are (for …
The appellants challenged the compensation awarded for land acquired in 1986 for a minor irrigation tank at Pimpla (Bk.) village, arguing that the Reference Court failed to apply a 10% yearly escalation for the period between earlier sale instances (April 1984 and September 1985) and the …
The appellant, Ramprasad Devidas Ambhure, challenged a 2010 compensation award that fixed the rate for his dry land at Rs.1,100 per R, seeking a higher rate based on a later judgment of this Court (First Appeal No.3202/2025). The land, acquired under notification dated 06‑07‑2000, is undisputedly …
The Executive Engineer of the Minor Irrigation Division appealed against a 2013 award of compensation in a land acquisition case concerning the estate of the late Shrimant Laxman Pawar. The appellant argued that the earlier decision of a coordinate bench (First Appeal No.1257 of 2008) covering the …
The appellants (acquiring body) and cross‑objections filed by the original claimants challenged the compensation awards dated 11 June 2010 in several land‑acquisition suits relating to the Tambat‑Sangvi Storage Tank Project. The claimants argued that their lands were acquired under the same …
The appellants, claimants in land acquisition proceedings dating back to 1986, appealed the Civil Judge's awards of April 2007 which had refused their claim for enhanced compensation. The High Court, noting a recent decision (First Appeal No.871/2007) on the same project, adopted the same reasoning …
The appellants, comprising original land claimants, and the acquiring body filed multiple appeals and cross‑objections against a 2010 judgment that enhanced compensation for land acquired for the Tambat‑Sangvi Storage Tank Project. The court observed that the factual matrix and legal issues were …
The claimants challenged the compensation awarded by the Joint Civil Judge for land acquired for the Tambat‑Sangvi Storage Tank Project, filing appeals and cross‑objections against the enhanced award. The acquiring body, Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation, and the State of …
The appellants (acquiring body) and cross‑objections filed by the original claimants challenged the compensation awards dated 11 June 2010 in several land‑acquisition suits relating to the Tambat‑Sangvi Storage Tank Project. The claimants argued that their lands, acquired from the same village for …
The appellants (original claimants) and the acquiring body filed appeals and cross‑objections against a 2010 judgment that enhanced compensation for lands acquired for the Tambat‑Sangvi Storage Tank Project. The parties argued that the controversy was identical to that decided in FA No. 2635/2010 …
The appellants and cross‑objection petitioners challenged the compensation awarded by the reference court on 11 June 2010 for land acquired for the Tambat‑Sangvi Storage Tank Project. The court observed that the same factual controversy had already been decided in FA No. 2635/2010 (Uddhav Madhav …
The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, dealt with a land acquisition dispute where claimants sought higher compensation for agricultural land taken for a 33 kV sub‑station. The claimants argued that the Reference Court had undervalued the land and applied an excessive 50% deduction, while the …
The High Court considered multiple appeals and cross‑objections filed by claimants and the acquiring body (Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation) against a 2010 award that enhanced compensation for land acquired for the Tambat‑Sangvi Storage Tank Project. The parties submitted that …
The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) considered a series of appeals and cross‑objections filed by claimants and the acquiring body against a 2010 judgment that enhanced compensation for land acquired for the Tambat‑Sangvi Storage Tank Project. The parties submitted that the disputes were …
The State of Maharashtra, as the acquiring body for a new railway line (Ahmednagar‑Beed‑Parli), appealed against a Reference Court’s order that enhanced compensation for lands acquired from several members of the Pokale family in Chinchala village. The Reference Court had raised the rate from Rs …
The appellants and cross‑objection petitioners challenged the award dated 11‑June‑2010 of the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmedpur, which had enhanced compensation for lands acquired for the Tambat‑Sangvi Storage Tank Project. They contended that the controversy was identical to that decided …
The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, entertained motions to correct a previously dated order. Counsel for the appellants argued that First Appeal Nos. 576 and 577 of 2017 were erroneously clubbed with First Appeal No. 699 of 2017 and should be removed from the title clause. The acquiring body …
The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, entertained motions to correct an earlier order dated 10 July 2026 concerning a series of first appeals (including No. 699/2017) relating to compensation for land acquired by the State of Maharashtra. The appellants argued that First Appeal Nos. 576 and …
The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) entertained motions to correct a prior order dated 10 July 2026. The appellants argued that First Appeals 576 and 577 of 2017 were erroneously clubbed with First Appeal 699 of 2017 and should be removed from the title clause. The acquiring body pointed out …
The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, corrected an earlier order dated 10 July 2026 after hearing motions. The court deleted First Appeal Nos. 576 and 577 of 2017 from the title clause, as they were wrongly clubbed with First Appeal No. 699 of 2017. It also directed that the claimants be awarded …
The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, corrected an earlier order dated 10 July 2026 by deleting First Appeal Nos. 576 and 577 of 2017 from the title clause as urged by the appellants. The court affirmed that the appeals of both the claimants and the acquiring body are partly allowed and …
The High Court corrected an earlier order dated 10 July 2026 by deleting First Appeal Nos. 576 and 577 from the title clause as they were wrongly clubbed with Appeal No. 699. The court affirmed that the claimants' appeals are partly allowed and that the acquiring body's appeals are also partly …
The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) entertained a motion to correct the minutes of an order dated 10 July 2026 concerning numerous first appeals arising from land‑acquisition proceedings in Latur. The appellants contended that First Appeal Nos. 576 and 577 of 2017 were erroneously clubbed with …
The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench entertained motions to correct a previously dated order. The appellants argued that First Appeal Nos. 576 and 577 of 2017 were improperly clubbed with First Appeal No. 699 and should be removed from the title clause. The acquiring body pointed out that the …
The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) entertained motions to correct a previously dated order. The appellants argued that First Appeal Nos. 576 and 577 of 2017 were erroneously clubbed with First Appeal No. 699 of 2017 and should be removed from the title clause. The acquiring body pointed out …
The appellant, Pralhad Asaram Kakde, sought enhancement of compensation for semi‑irrigated land acquired for the Jaipur Percolation Tank, arguing that a settlement reached in a related Lok‑Adalat case (First Appeal No.2834 of 2024) should apply by parity. The original award under Section 4 of the …
The appellant Bhima Tulshiram Thakare appealed against the Special Land Acquisition Officer and another regarding a 2010 award in a land acquisition matter for minor irrigation works. The court noted that the issues were already decided in a coordinate bench judgment dated 8 January 2026 in First …
The Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Corporation appealed the awards of a reference court that had determined compensation for land acquired for the Sangli Malumbra minor irrigation tank. The reference court had applied a 40% deduction to the market value based on a sale transaction from a …
The case concerned land acquisition proceedings initiated in 2008 for the Karkheli Storage Tank project, where the original award dated 4 August 2015 granted compensation based on rates of Rs.2,20,000, Rs.3,30,000 and Rs.4,40,000 per hectare for dry, seasonally irrigated and irrigated lands …
The case concerned land acquisition proceedings initiated in 2008 for the Karkheli Storage Tank project, where the original award dated 4 August 2015 granted compensation based on rates of Rs.2,20,000, Rs.3,30,000 and Rs.4,40,000 per hectare for dry, seasonally irrigated and irrigated lands …
The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, corrected an earlier order dated 10 July 2026 by deleting First Appeal Nos. 576 and 577 from the title clause as urged by the appellants. The court partially allowed the appeals of both the claimants and the acquiring body and affirmed compensation of …
The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, entertained motions to correct an earlier order dated 10 July 2026 concerning a large number of land‑acquisition appeals. The appellants argued that First Appeal Nos. 576 and 577 of 2017 had been improperly clubbed with First Appeal No. 699 of 2017 and …
The case concerned land acquisition proceedings initiated in 2008 for the Karkheli Storage Tank project, where the original award dated 4 August 2015 granted compensation based on rates of Rs.2,20,000, Rs.3,30,000 and Rs.4,40,000 per hectare for dry, seasonally irrigated and irrigated lands …
The case concerned land acquisition proceedings initiated in 2008 for the Karkheli Storage Tank project, where the original award dated 4 August 2015 granted compensation based on rates of Rs.2,20,000, Rs.3,30,000 and Rs.4,40,000 per hectare for dry, seasonally irrigated and irrigated lands …
The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench heard a motion to correct the minutes of an order dated 10 July 2026 concerning a large number of land‑acquisition appeals. The appellants argued that First Appeal Nos. 576 and 577 of 2017 had been mistakenly clubbed with First Appeal No. 699 of 2017 and …
The case concerned land acquisition proceedings initiated in 2008 for the Karkheli Storage Tank project, where the original award dated 4 August 2015 granted compensation based on rates of Rs.2,20,000, Rs.3,30,000 and Rs.4,40,000 per hectare for dry, seasonally irrigated and irrigated lands …
The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, entertained motions to correct a prior order dated 10 July 2026. Counsel for the appellants argued that First Appeal Nos. 576 and 577 of 2017 were erroneously clubbed with First Appeal No. 699 of 2017 and should be removed from the title clause. The …
The case concerned land acquisition proceedings initiated in 2008 for the Karkheli Storage Tank project, where the original award dated 4 August 2015 granted compensation based on rates of Rs.2,20,000, Rs.3,30,000 and Rs.4,40,000 per hectare for dry, seasonally irrigated and irrigated lands …
The appellants, Laxmi Ramchandra Dongre and Vitthal Ramchandra Dongre, challenged the award of Rs 2,000 per R by the Reference Court for dry land acquired for the Nimna Dudhana Project in Salgaon village. They sought a higher rate, invoking escalation benefits recognized in a prior common order …
The appellant Mahadeo Manik Satpute appealed against the award of compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, contending that the rate should reflect the land's seasonal irrigation status. The court noted a prior decision (First Appeal No.4047 of 2017) that had fixed a higher rate …
The appellants’ lands in Hatwan village were acquired for the Nimna Dudhana Project. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation rates for dry and Pot Kharab land but refused to grant escalation interest. The appellants argued that, based on a prior decision (First Appeal No. 1956 of 2021), they …
