The appellants' lands in Khadgaon village were acquired for the Waghoor project and they were awarded compensation at a rate of Rs 1,80,000 per hectare by the reference court. They contended that, as held in earlier High Court decisions, the appropriate rate for dry land should be Rs 3,00,000 per …
The claimants challenged the compensation awarded by the reference court for land acquired for the Tambat‑Sangvi Storage Tank Project, arguing that the award should be enhanced. The State of Maharashtra and the acquiring body, Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation, cross‑objected, …
The appeal challenges a 2016 award of compensation in a land acquisition case (Reference No.216 of 2006) concerning land from Gaurgaon village for the Nagulgaon Storage Tank. The appellant argued that the dispute is identical to a prior appeal (First Appeal No. 1775 of 2011) decided by the same …
The claimants challenged the compensation awarded for land acquired for the Tambat‑Sangvi Storage Tank Project, arguing that the award dated 11‑June‑2010 should be enhanced. The acquiring body and the State of Maharashtra filed appeals and cross‑objections against the same award. The Court observed …
The appellants (original claimants) and the acquiring body filed multiple appeals and cross‑objections against the award dated 11‑June‑2010 in several land‑acquisition cases relating to the Tambat‑Sangvi Storage Tank Project. Both sides submitted that the disputes were identical to those decided in …
The appellants, original claimants in a land‑acquisition proceeding for the Tambat‑Sangvi Storage Tank Project, challenged the compensation awarded by the reference court in judgments dated 11 June 2010. The acquiring body filed cross‑objections, seeking modification of the award. The Court observed …
The appellants, whose lands in Khadgaon village were acquired for the Waghoor project, challenged the compensation awarded by the reference court at Rs.1,80,000 per hectare, contending that the rate for dry land should be Rs.3,00,000 per hectare as upheld in earlier judgments. The respondents argued …
The appellants challenged a compensation award for land acquired in 1997 for a minor irrigation tank, arguing that the award undervalued the dry land because the reference court improperly excluded certain sale comparables. The court noted that possession was taken before the Section 4 notification …
The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) entertained motions to correct an order dated 10 July 2026 concerning numerous first appeals related to land‑acquisition compensation. The appellants contended that First Appeal Nos. 576 and 577 of 2017 were erroneously clubbed and should be removed from the …
The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, corrected an earlier order dated 10 July 2026 after hearing motions to delete two improperly clubbed appeals (Nos. 576 and 577 of 2017) from the title clause. The court affirmed that the claimants are entitled to compensation of Rs.10,48,000 per hectare for …
The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, corrected an earlier order dated 10 July 2026 after hearing motions filed by the appellants and the acquiring body. The appellants argued that First Appeal Nos. 576 and 577 of 2017 had been improperly clubbed with First Appeal No. 699 of 2017 and should be …
The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad bench, dealt with a first appeal and an X‑objection concerning the compensation awarded for land acquired in 1999 for a 33 kV sub‑station. The claimants sought Rs 20,000 per R but the Reference Court enhanced the compensation only to Rs 6,000 per R, applying a …
The Maharashtra Krushna Valley Development Corporation (the acquiring body) appealed against awards of compensation granted by a Reference Court in respect of land acquired for the Sangli Malumbra minor irrigation tank. The Reference Court had fixed compensation rates of Rs.3,333 per R for dry land, …
The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) heard a motion to correct an earlier order dated 10 July 2026 concerning multiple first appeals relating to land acquisition compensation. Counsel for the appellants argued that First Appeal Nos. 576 and 577 of 2017 were erroneously clubbed and should be …
The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, entertained a motion to correct the minutes of its order dated 10 July 2026. The appellants contended 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 High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, entertained motions to correct a prior order dated 10 July 2026 concerning a large number of first appeals related to land acquisition in Latur. Counsel for the appellants argued that First Appeal Nos. 576 and 577 of 2017 were improperly clubbed with First …
The Executive Engineer (Acquiring Body) appealed against awards of compensation granted by a Reference Court to several landowners, contending that the court had excessively enhanced the compensation beyond the rate fixed by the State Level Award Officer (SLAO). The respondents argued that the …
The High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, entertained motions to correct a prior order dated 10 July 2026. 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 appellants, whose lands in Hatwan village were acquired for the Nimna Dudhana Project, challenged the Reference Court's award that enhanced compensation rates but denied escalation benefits. They argued that, based on prior judgments, they were entitled to a 10% per annum escalation for four …
The State of Maharashtra filed a civil application seeking dismissal of a compensation claim after the appellants deposited and the respondents withdrew the amounts. The court considered a prior decision (First Appeal No. 737 of 2012) where the reference court awarded only a 25% uplift over the …
The petitioner, a Project Affected Person (PAP), filed a writ petition challenging a Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal order that dismissed her application for a Group C (Class III) appointment under the 5% PAP reservation. She argued that PAP candidates should be treated as a distinct category …
We use cookies for analytics to improve your experience. Essential cookies are always on. Privacy Policy.
