Bombay High Court

THE STATE OF MAH AND ORSversusTAYARAM DEVRAO PANHALKAR AND ANR

Disposal: DISMISSED

Holding

The Court held that there was no reason to intervene as the compensation enhancement did not exceed four times the Land Acquisition Officer's award.

Summary

The State of Maharashtra and others appealed the judgment and award dated 10 April 2007 passed by the Additional District Judge‑I, Beed in several land acquisition reference cases (LAR Nos. 173/2005 to 191/2005). The appellants contended that the compensation enhancement ordered by the reference court exceeded the permissible limit of four times the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The Court examined the State Government’s policy resolution (Sankirna‑2014/Prak.Kra.4/Bham‑1/A‑4 dated 3 November 2016, with subsequent corrigenda) which stipulated that the State would not challenge a reference order if the enhancement was up to four times. Finding that the enhanced compensation did not surpass this ceiling, the Court saw no ground to interfere with the reference court’s award. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed and any pending civil applications were also disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the compensation enhancement awarded by the reference court exceeds four times the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.
Whether the State Government's policy resolution precludes challenging reference court orders that enhance compensation up to four times.

Subjects

Land Acquisition
Compensation Enhancement
Reference Court
Government Resolution
Appeal Dismissal
Policy Decision

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:46242

                                                                      FA 2582/13 & Ors.
                                                  1

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                924 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2582 OF 2013

                                    THE STATE OF MAH AND ORS
                                               VERSUS
                                       MARUTI MAHADA DOKE
                                                  ...
                            AGP for Appellants/State : Mr. S.N. Morampalle
                                                  ...
                                                WITH
                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 2583 OF 2013
                                                WITH
                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 2584 OF 2013
                                                WITH
                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 2585 OF 2013
                                                WITH
                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 2586 OF 2013
                                                WITH
                                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 2587 OF 2013
                                                  …

                                 CORAM        : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                 Dated        : September 30, 2026

            PER COURT :-

            1.    Heard the learned AGP for State/appellants.

            2.       By these appeal, the appellants/State assails the Judgment and

            award dated 10.4.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I,

            Beed in LAR Nos. No.176/2005, 174/2005, 175/2005, 173/2005, 191/2005

            and 179/2005.

            3.       The learned AGP submits that the compensation enhanced by the

            learned Reference Court does not exceed four times the amount awarded by

            the Land Acquisition Officer.

            4.       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
                                                            FA 2582/13 & Ors.
                                       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.

5.      Therefore, I do not find any reason to intervene with the impugned

order. Hence, the present Appeals are dismissed.

6.     In view of dismissal of the Appeals, pending Civil Applications, if any,

do not survive and are disposed of accordingly.



                                           ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )

ssc/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…