Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

THE STATE OF MAH THR COLLECTOR AND ORSversusREVA MAHATRYA GAVIT

Disposal
Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute

Holding

The appeal is dismissed as the compensation enhancement does not exceed the four‑times limit and the State’s policy precludes any challenge in such circumstances.

Summary

The State filed a civil application seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the judgment and award dated 23 November 2007 in LAR No. 252/2005. The court allowed the application and condoned the delay. The appeal challenged the compensation awarded, contending that the reference court’s enhancement did not exceed four times the amount fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer, in line with a Government Resolution dated 3 November 2016 (with subsequent corrigenda). The High Court noted that the State’s policy decision was not to contest the reference where the enhancement was limited to four times, and therefore found no ground to interfere with the impugned order. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and any pending civil applications were disposed of.

Issues considered

  • Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned under the applicable procedural rules.
  • Whether the compensation enhancement beyond the Land Acquisition Officer’s award exceeds the four‑times limit prescribed by the State Government’s resolution.
  • Whether the High Court should intervene in the reference court’s award given the State’s policy not to challenge enhancements up to four times.

Subjects

  • land acquisition
  • compensation
  • condonation of delay
  • appeal dismissal
  • government resolution
  • reference court

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:46257

                                                                              CA 13716/12
                                                   1

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             933 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13716 OF 2012
                                        IN FAST/28379/2012

                            THE STATE OF MAH THR COLLECTOR AND ORS
                                              VERSUS
                                      REVA MAHATRYA GAVIT
                                                 ...
                              AGP for Applicants/State : Mr. D.R. Korde
                                                 ...

                                               WITH
                               CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13717 OF 2012
                                        IN FAST/28379/2012

                                                  ...

                                 CORAM        : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                 Dated        : September 30, 2026

            PER COURT :-

            1.    Civil application is filed by the State for condonation of delay in filing

            the appeal. For the averments made in the application, the application is

            allowed. Delay is condoned.

            2.    As the acquisition proceeding is of the year 2001, heard finally with

            the consent of the learned AGP for State.

            3.       By this appeal, the Appellant assails the Judgment and award dated

            23.11.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nandurbar in

            LAR No. 252/2005.

            4.       The learned AGP for the State submit that the compensation

            enhanced by the learned Reference Court does not exceed four times the

            amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.

            5.       In view of the aforesaid submissions and having regard to the policy

            decision of the State Government contained in Government Resolution
                                                                CA 13716/12
                                      2

No.Sankirna-2014/Prak.Kra.4/Bham-1/A-4         dated     03.11.2016     with

Corrigendum dated 23.02.2017 and 13.08.2018 to the said Government

Resolution, took a decision not to challenge the reference, if compensation

is enhanced only upto four times.

6.      Therefore, I do not find any reason to intervene with the impugned

order. Hence, the present Appeal is dismissed.

7.     In view of dismissal of Appeal, pending Civil Applications, if any, do

not survive and are disposed of accordingly.



                                          ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )

ssc/


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.