Bombay High Court
MAHA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONversusBABURAO NAGORAO JADHAV and ORS
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The Court held that the earlier decision in First Appeal No.694 of 2004 governs the matter, and therefore the present appeals must be dismissed.
Summary
The appellants challenged three separate judgments and awards relating to land acquisition proceedings of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC) at Latur dating back to 1993. The issues centered on the correctness of the compensation awards and whether the earlier decisions should stand. The High Court noted that a prior decision in First Appeal No.694 of 2004, arising from the same acquisition, had already settled the legal questions. Relying on that precedent, the Court found no merit in revisiting the awards. Consequently, all three appeals were dismissed and the pending civil applications, along with any cross‑objections, were disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the compensation awards in the earlier acquisition proceedings are valid
- Whether the precedent set in First Appeal No.694 of 2004 applies to the present appeals
- Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to alter the earlier awards
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- MIDC
- precedent
- appeal dismissed
- civil application
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:45052
1 of 4 901-FA.3765.2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
901 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3765 OF 2008
M I D C LATUR
VERSUS
MADHAVRAO GANUJI DHAGE AND OTHERS
...
Mr. S. S. Dande, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for Respondent-State.
Adv. Sawari M. Patil h/f. Mr. Milind M. Patil (Beedkar), Advocate for
Respondent No.1.
...
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1003 OF 2004
MAHA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
VERSUS
BABURAO NAGORAO JADHAV AND ORS
…
Mr. S. S. Dande, Advocate for Appellant
Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. Amol Subhash Gandhi, Advocate for Respondent No.1a.
AND
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1166 OF 2006
DHONDIBA MAHAJAN JADHAV AND ORS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
…
Mr. Pratap P. Mandlik a/w. Mr. Amol Gandhi and Mr. U. B. Bilolikar,
Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for Respondent-State.
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10877 OF 2026
IN X-OBJST/28407/2026
RAHIBAI LAXMAN SHINDE DEAD THROUGH LRS SARSWATI AND
ORS.
VERSUS
2 of 4 901-FA.3765.2008
THE REGIONAL OFFICER, M.I.D.C. LATUR AND ORS.
…
Mr. Satish S. Manale, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. S. S. Dande, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10878 OF 2026
IN FA/2296/2010
RAHIBAI LAXMAN SHINDE DIED THR LRS SARSWATI AND ORS.
VERSUS
THE REGIONAL OFFICER, MAHARASHTRA, INDUSTRIAL
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LATUR AND ORS.
…
Mr. Satish S. Manale, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. S. S. Dande, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1339 OF 2019
IN X-OBJST/5538/2014
BABARAO NAGORAO JADHAV DIED THRO. L.RS. BALWANT
BABARAO JADHAV
VERSUS
M.I.D.C. A CORPORATE BODY THROUGH DIVISI.OFFICER,LATUR
…
Mr. Amol S. Gandhi, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for Respondent-State.
Mr. S. S. Dande, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C.:-
1. Since the acquisition proceedings pertain to the year 1993,
the appeals are heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates
for the respective parties.
3 of 4 901-FA.3765.2008
2. By the present appeals, the Appellants are challenging the
following judgments and awards:-
(i) In First Appeal No.3765 of 2008, the judgment and award dated
27.02.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division,
Biloli in LAR No.179/1998;
(ii) In First Appeal No.1003 of 2004, the judgment and award dated
19.01.2004 passed by the learned 1 st Adhoc Additional District
Judge, Biloli in LAR No.77/2002 (Old No.166/1998); and
(iii) In First Appeal No.1166 of 2006, the judgment and award dated
17.06.2006 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional District
Judge, Biloli in LAR No.45/2002, whereby the learned Reference
Court enhanced the compensation.
3. Learned Advocates for the respective Appellants submit that
this Court has taken a view in First Appeal No.694 of 2004 decided on
29.06.2006 arising out of same acquisition proceeding i.e. for
establishment of MIDC at village Krushnoor, Ghungarala and
Savarkheda.
4. Upon perusal of order passed by this Court in First Appeal
No.694 of 2004, I am inclined to adopt the same view in the present
appeals. Therefore, present appeals along with civil applications are
disposed of accordingly. Hence, the following order is passed:-
4 of 4 901-FA.3765.2008
ORDER
(i) First Appeal No.1166 of 2006 filed by the Claimants
as well as First Appeal Nos.3765 of 2008 and 1003 of
2004 filed by the acquiring body are dismissed.
(ii) Pending civil applications along with cross objections,
if any, are also disposed of.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Tauseef
Checking your session…