Bombay High Court
THE STATE OF MAH AND ANRversusSUMITABAI TUKARAM SHINDE
- Disposal
- PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY DISMISSED
Holding
The appeals are dismissed, and the reference court's compensation award stands.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed multiple first appeals challenging a common judgment and award dated 26 October 2010 that increased compensation for land acquired from various respondents. The reference court had enhanced the compensation from Rs.47,000 per hectare, as determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, to Rs.1,94,000 per hectare. The appellants argued that the enhancement exceeded the permissible four‑fold limit, while the respondents contended that the increase was within the limit and consistent with a State Government resolution dated 3 November 2016. The bench examined the policy decision embodied in Government Resolution No. Sankirna‑2014/Prak.Kra.4/Bham‑1/A‑4 and its corrigenda, which indicated that the State would not contest enhancements up to four times the original amount. Finding no reason to interfere, the court held that the reference court’s award did not contravene the policy and dismissed the appeals. Consequently, the pending civil applications were also disposed of, and the claimants were permitted to withdraw any amount deposited with the acquiring authority.
Issues considered
- Whether the compensation awarded by the reference court exceeds the four‑times limit over the Land Acquisition Officer's award.
- Whether the State Government's policy resolution precludes judicial intervention when the enhancement is within the stipulated limit.
Subjects
- Land acquisition
- Compensation enhancement
- Four‑fold limit
- Government resolution
- Appellate jurisdiction
- Civil application disposal
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:27088
FA 2480/17 & Ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
18 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2480 OF 2017
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3741 OF 2013 IN FA/2480/2017
THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR
VERSUS
SUBHASH BABARAO PAUL
...
AGP for Appellant : Mrs. A.S. Mantri
Advocate for Respondent : Mr. H.B. Nandagavale h/f. Mr. V.G. Sakolkar
...
19 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2481 OF 2017
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3737 OF 2013 IN FA/2481/2017
THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR
VERSUS
NARSING CHENDU PAUL AND ANR
...
AGP for Appellant : Mr. A.A.A. Khan
Advocate for Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr. H.B. Nandagavale h/f. Mr. V.G.
Sakolkar
...
20 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2482 OF 2017
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3739 OF 2013 IN FA/2482/2017
THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR
VERSUS
MANDODARI WAMANRAO PAUL
...
AGP for Appellant : Mr. A.D. Wange
Advocate for Respondent : Mr. H.B. Nandagavale h/f. Mr. V.G. Sakolkar
...
21 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2483 OF 2017
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3743 OF 2013 IN FA/2483/2017
THE STATE OF MAH AND ANR
VERSUS
SUMITABAI TUKARAM SHINDE
...
AGP for Appellant : Mr. R.B. Dhaware
Advocate for Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr. H.B. Nandagavale h/f. Mr. V.G.
Sakolkar
...
FA 2480/17 & Ors.
22 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2484 OF 2017
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3745 OF 2013 IN FA/2484/2017
THE STATE OF MAH THR COLLECTOR AND ANR
VERSUS
UDDHAV BABURAO DABHADE AND ANR
...
AGP for Appellant : Mr. S.S. Dande
Advocate for Respondents 1 & 2 : Mr. H.B. Nandagavale h/f. Mr. V.G.
Sakolkar
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
Dated : July 07, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. Heard the learned AGP for the Appellant/State and the learned
counsel for the claimants.
2. By these appeals, the Appellants assail the common Judgment and
award dated 26.10.2010 passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Ahmedpur in L.A.R. Nos. 415, 417, 416, 414 and 413 of 2008,
respectively.
3. After hearing for some time and after going through the judgment
and award passed by the reference court, I find that SLAO has granted
compensation at the rate of Rs.47000/- per H. and the reference court has
granted compensation at the rate of 1,94,000/- per H. in above LARs.
4. Learned AGP for the appellants as well as the learned counsel for
the claimants 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 No.Sankirna-2014/Prak.Kra.4/Bham-1/A-4 dated 03.11.2016
FA 2480/17 & Ors.
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 Appeals are dismissed.
7. The Claimants are at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited by
the State/acquiring body before the learned Reference Court, if any.
8. In view of dismissal of the Appeal, pending Civil Applications, if
any, do not survive and are disposed of accordingly.
( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )
ssc/
Checking your session…