Bombay High Court
THE STATE OF MAH AND ORSversusSHIVALAL VEDU KOLI
- Disposal
- Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
Holding
The appeal is dismissed as the compensation enhancement does not exceed four times the Land Acquisition Officer’s award and the State’s policy precludes a challenge in such circumstances.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed a civil application seeking condonation of delay in filing an appeal against the judgment and award dated 6 October 2009 passed by the Ad‑hoc District Judge‑1, Amalner in LAR No. 421/1993. The State argued that the compensation enhancement ordered by the Reference Court did not exceed four times the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, and that a Government Resolution of 3 November 2016 (with subsequent corrigenda) barred any challenge where the enhancement is up to four times. The Court, after condoning the delay, found no merit in intervening and dismissed the appeal. Consequently, any pending civil applications were also disposed of. The decision rests on the policy that compensation enhancements up to four times are not contestable.
Issues considered
- Whether the compensation enhancement exceeding the Land Acquisition Officer’s award but not exceeding four times can be challenged.
- Whether the appeal can be entertained despite the delay in filing.
- Whether pending civil applications survive the dismissal of the appeal.
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation enhancement
- delay condonation
- appeal dismissed
- government resolution
- reference court
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:46261
CA 4549/12
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
934 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4549 OF 2012
IN FAST/6847/2012
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
VERSUS
SHIVALAL VEDU KOLI
...
AGP for Applicants/State : Mr. A.D. Wange
...
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4550 OF 2012
IN FAST/6847/2012
...
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 1988, heard finally with
the consent of the learned AGP for State.
3. By this appeal, the Appellant assails the Judgment and award dated
6.10.2009 passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Amalner in LAR
No. 421/1993.
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
No.Sankirna-2014/Prak.Kra.4/Bham-1/A-4 dated 03.11.2016 with
CA 4549/12
2
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/
Checking your session…