Bombay High Court
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHERversusDASHRATH GOPALA TANDALE (DIED L.RS.) NANABHAU DASHRATH AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- Admitted/Allowed/Granted/Rule Absolute
Holding
The High Court dismissed the State's appeals, finding no reason to intervene against the reference court's award that slightly exceeds four times the SLAO compensation.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed civil applications seeking condonation of a 1,664‑day delay in filing several first appeals challenging a 18 March 2009 judgment of the District Judge‑III, Beed, which enhanced compensation to slightly more than four times the amount awarded by the State Land Acquisition Ordinance (SLAO). The State argued that a Government Resolution dated 3 November 2016, with subsequent corrigenda, stipulated that it would not contest the reference court's award if the compensation was increased only up to four times the SLAO amount. The reference court, however, relied on a pre‑notification sale instance and enhanced the compensation beyond the four‑fold limit. The High Court examined whether the State could intervene against the award and found no merit in the State's contention, holding that the reference court was correct in its approach. Consequently, the first appeals were dismissed and the pending civil applications for condonation of delay were disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the State of Maharashtra can challenge the reference court's award that exceeds four times the compensation granted under the SLAO, in view of the Government Resolution limiting challenges to up to four times.
- Whether the reference court erred in relying on a sale instance predating the notification date to justify the enhanced compensation.
Subjects
- compensation
- land acquisition
- government resolution
- condonation of delay
- civil appeal
- Maharashtra
- district judge
- reference court
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:35651
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…