Bombay High Court
THE STATE OF MAH AND ORSversusMAHALING SUBHASH MITKARI
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appeals are dismissed as there is no ground to intervene in the reference court’s award.
Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against a judgment and award dated 23 February 2007 issued by the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Ahmedpur, concerning land acquisition proceedings from 1996. The appellants contended that the compensation enhanced by the reference court should not exceed four times the amount awarded by the State Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO). The State Government’s resolution of 3 November 2016 (with subsequent corrigenda) stipulated that it would not challenge the reference court’s award if the enhancement was limited to four times the SLAO amount. The High Court examined whether there was any ground to intervene in the reference court’s award. Finding no reason to interfere, the Court dismissed all the appeals and ordered the disposal of any pending civil applications. Consequently, the original awards stood as rendered.
Issues considered
- Whether the reference court’s enhanced compensation exceeds the four‑times limit prescribed by the State Government’s resolution.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to intervene in the reference court’s award under the land acquisition proceedings.
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation enhancement
- reference court
- appeal dismissal
- Maharashtra State Government resolution
- civil procedure
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:31784
1 of 6 08-FA.2005.2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
8 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2005 OF 2014
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
VERSUS
SHIVAJI SANTRAM SHINGADE
...
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for the Appellant-State.
...
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2012 OF 2014
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
VERSUS
SUDHIR SUBAHSH BEMBADE
…
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for the Appellant-State.
Mr. Suraj V. Gundre, Advocate for Respondent.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2013 OF 2014
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
VERSUS
ARVIND VASANT DAKE
…
Ms. Madhubala Bharat Gangwal, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for the Appellant-State.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2014 OF 2014
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
VERSUS
MAHALING SUBHASH MITKARI
…
Ms. Madhubala Bharat Gangwal, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for the Appellant-State.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2015 OF 2014
Tauseef
2 of 6 08-FA.2005.2014
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
VERSUS
BHANUDAS SANTRAM SHINGADE
…
Ms. Madhubala Bharat Gangwal, Advocate for Appellant No.3.
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for the Appellant-State.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2016 OF 2014
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
VERSUS
BABRUWAN NIRUTTI BEMBADE
…
Ms. Madhubala Bharat Gangwal, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for the Appellant-State.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2007 OF 2014
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
VERSUS
DNYANOBA SANTRAM SHINGADE
…
Ms. Madhubala Bharat Gangwal, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for the Appellant-State.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2017 OF 2014
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
VERSUS
BAPURAO HANMANT KASALE
…
Ms. Madhubala Bharat Gangwal, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for the Appellant-State.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2019 OF 2014
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
VERSUS
Tauseef
3 of 6 08-FA.2005.2014
BAPURAO GYANOBA KONDAMGIRE
…
Ms. Madhubala Bharat Gangwal, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for the Appellant-State.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2021 OF 2014
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
VERSUS
GYANDEO BAPURAO KONDAMIGIRE
…
Ms. Madhubala Bharat Gangwal, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for the Appellant-State.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2006 OF 2014
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
VERSUS
DATTATRAYA BABARAO SHINGADE
…
Ms. Madhubala Bharat Gangwal, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for the Appellant-State.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2020 OF 2014
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
VERSUS
SOPAN GYANOBA KONDAMIGRE AND ANR
…
Ms. Madhubala Bharat Gangwal, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for the Appellant-State.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2018 OF 2014
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
VERSUS
JANARDHAN BABARAO SHINGADE
…
Ms. Madhubala Bharat Gangwal, Advocate for Appellants.
Tauseef
4 of 6 08-FA.2005.2014
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for the Appellant-State.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2010 OF 2014
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
VERSUS
SIDRAM NARAYAN TELANG
…
Ms. Madhubala Bharat Gangwal, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for the Appellant-State.
Mr. Suraj V. Gundre, Advocate for Respondents.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2011 OF 2014
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
VERSUS
MAHALING GANGADHAR YEDNE
…
Ms. Madhubala Bharat Gangwal, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for the Appellant-State.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2009 OF 2014
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR LATUR AND
ANR
VERSUS
BALAJI DIGAMBAR YELALE
…
Ms. Madhubala Bharat Gangwal, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for the Appellant-State.
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2008 OF 2014
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
VERSUS
DHONDIRAJ SHIVDASAPPA MITKARI
…
Ms. Madhubala Bharat Gangwal, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for the Appellant-State.
Tauseef
5 of 6 08-FA.2005.2014
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 22nd JULY, 2026
P.C.:-
1. Admit.
2. The acquisition proceeding is of the year 1996, heard finally
with the consent of the parties at the admission stage.
3. By this appeal, the Appellants are aggrieved by the Judgment
and award dated 23.02.2007 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge
Senior Division, Ahmedpur, District Latur in LAR Nos.49/2002,
48/2002, 66/2002, 50/2002, 47/2002, 53/2002, 52/2002, 51/2002,
55/2002, 54/2002, 61/2002, 60/2002, 56/2002, 65/2002, 64/2002,
63/2002 and 62/2002.
4. Both the learned Advocates for the respective parties submit
that the compensation enhanced by the learned Reference Court does
not exceed four times the amount awarded by the SLAO.
5. 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.
Tauseef
6 of 6 08-FA.2005.2014
6. Therefore, I do not find any reason to intervene with the
impugned awards. Hence, the present Appeals are dismissed.
7. In view of dismissal of the Appeals, pending Civil
Applications, if any, do not survive and are disposed of accordingly.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)
Tauseef
Checking your session…