Bombay High Court
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHERversusAJIT AAJINATH MADHUKAR TANDALE AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
Holding
The court condoned the delay in the civil applications but dismissed the first appeals, finding no ground to intervene in the compensation enhancement that was only marginally above the four‑times limit.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed civil applications seeking condonation of a 1,664‑day delay in filing first appeals challenging a district court award that increased compensation to slightly more than four times the amount granted by the State Legal Aid Office. The State also appealed the award, arguing that the enhancement exceeded the ceiling of four times as stipulated by a Government Resolution dated 3 November 2016, with subsequent corrigenda. The court examined the Government Resolution, which indicated that the State would not challenge the reference if the compensation was enhanced only up to four times, and noted that the reference court relied on a comparable sale instance predating the notification. Finding no statutory prohibition and that the increase was only marginally above the four‑times limit, the court saw no reason to interfere with the award. Consequently, the civil applications for condonation of delay were allowed, but the first appeals were dismissed, and any pending applications were disposed of. The judgment underscores the limited scope for judicial intervention in compensation awards when they fall within or marginally exceed government‑prescribed limits.
Issues considered
- Whether the 1,664‑day delay in filing the first appeals can be condoned under procedural law.
- Whether the district court's enhancement of compensation to slightly more than four times the SLAO award violates the Government Resolution limiting such enhancement.
Subjects
- condonation of delay
- compensation award
- government resolution
- civil appeal
- judgment review
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:35649
940-CA-6200-2014.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
940 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6200 OF 2014
IN FAST/10279/2014
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
VERSUS
Ajit Aajinath Madhukar Tandale And Another
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6204 OF 2014
IN FAST/10253/2014
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
VERSUS
Dashrath Gopala Tandale (died L.rs.) Nanabhau Dashrath And Others
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6201 OF 2014
IN FAST/10279/2014
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
VERSUS
Ajit Aajinath Madhukar Tandale And Another
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6203 OF 2014
IN FAST/10282/2014
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
VERSUS
Ashabai Dinkar Tandale And Another
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6202 OF 2014
IN FAST/10282/2014
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
VERSUS
Ashabai Dinkar Tandale And Another
WITH
Shubham Page 1 of 4
940-CA-6200-2014.doc
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6205 OF 2014
IN FAST/10253/2014
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
VERSUS
Dashrath Gopala Tandale (died L.rs.) Nanabhau Dashrath And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 10279 OF 2014
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
VERSUS
Ajit Aajinath Madhukar Tandale And Another
WITH
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 10253 OF 2014
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
VERSUS
Dashrath Gopala Tandale (died L.rs.) Nanabhau Dashrath And Others
WITH
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 10282 OF 2014
The State Of Maharashtra And Another
VERSUS
Ashabai Dinkar Tandale And Another
...
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for State.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 6 AUGUST 2026
P. C.:
Order in Civil Applications for condonation of delay
1. These Civil Applications are filed for condonation of delay of 1664
days in filing respective First Appeals.
Shubham Page 2 of 4
940-CA-6200-2014.doc
2. Considering the averments made therein, the Civil Application
Nos.6200, 6204 and 6202 of 2014 are allowed and the delay is condoned.
Order in First Appeals
3. The captioned First Appeals are not on board. Upon mentioning,
taken on board.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the State.
5. By these Appeals, the Appellant-State assails the judgment and award
dated 18th March 2009, passed by District Judge-III, Beed in LAR Nos.247,
248 and 249 of 2006 whereby compensation came to be enhanced to an
extent slightly more than four times of the same granted by the SLAO.
6. Learned AGP submits that the compensation granted by the learned
Reference Court is slightly more than four times of the compensation
granted by the SLAO.
7. In fact the State Government vide Government Resolution
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.
8. The perusal of impugned award clearly shows that the Reference
Court has enhanced the compensation to an extent slightly more than four
times the same granted by the SLAO. The learned Reference Court has relied
upon sale instance below Exh.30 dated 17 th May 1994 which was prior to
Shubham Page 3 of 4
940-CA-6200-2014.doc
the date of notification. Therefore, the same was rightly treated as
comparable sale instance.
9. Therefore, I do not find any reason to intervene with the impugned
order. Hence, the present First Appeals are dismissed.
10. In view of dismissal of the Appeals, pending Civil Applications, if any,
do not survive and are disposed of accordingly.
[SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.]
Shubham Page 4 of 4
Checking your session…