Dismissed¶174

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Nivrutti Kishan Kamble

Bombay HC8 Jul 2025CA/5381/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land acquisition compensation enhancement - State appeal against Reference Court award - Urdhva Manar Project - village Sangvi - Section 4(1) Land Acquisition Act notification 09.02.1999 - award 12.11.1998 - SLAO rate Rs. 60 per sq. mtr. enhanced to Rs. 180 per sq. mtr. - sale instance method (Exh. 26, 27) - valuer evidence - delay condonation 1359 days - no perversity or illegality - first appeals dismissed - Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench - Kishore C. Sant, J. - 08.07.2025 - 2025:BHC-AUG:17714 - FAST/10501/2012 and connected matters.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 1359 days condoned and first appeals registered; first appeals dismissed, upholding the Reference Court's enhancement of compensation to Rs. 180/- per sq. mtr.; no order as to costs; civil applications for stay disposed of. ¶174

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs Nivrutti Kishan Kamble — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶174

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 1359 days in filing the first appeals should be condoned. +1 more

¶154

Court's answer

The civil applications for condonation of delay stand allowed; delay of 1359 days stands condoned and the Office is directed to register the first appeals.

¶156

Ratio / Principle

There is no perversity or illegality in the Reference Court's judgment; the Reference Court rightly considered the market price of properties in village Sangvi and the sale instances in enhancing the compensation.

¶173

Key takeaways

No case is made out calling for interference; the first appeals stand dismissed with no order as to costs.ratio¶174
In view of the disposal of the first appeals, nothing survives in the civil applications for stay, which also stand disposed of.ratio¶176

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Batch of fourteen First Appeals (Stamp) of 2012, with civil applications for condonation of delay and for stay, filed by the State of Maharashtra and the acquiring body against claimants whose land acquisition references were allowed by the impugned judgment and award dated 22.04.2008 of the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Ahmedpur. The lands (house properties with/without plot in village Sangvi) were acquired for the Urdhva Manar Project; the Section 4(1) notification under the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 09.02.1999 and the award passed on 12.11.1998; the S.L.A.O. had awarded Rs. 60/- per sq. mtr., enhanced by the Reference Court to Rs. 180/- per sq. mtr. Delay of 1359 days in filing the appeals was condoned. On merits, the Court noted that the Reference Court considered the market price of properties in village Sangvi (population around 3000, higher education facilities within 09 Kms, taluka at 09 Kms, Balaghat Sugar Factory at 03 Kms), the evidence of claimant Dnyanoba Nagorao Barkume, valuer Mr. Pokalwar (open plot around Rs. 500/- per sq. mtr. before acquisition), and two sale instances at Exhs. 26 and 27 (plots of 40/50 ft. for Rs. 2,80,000/- and 40/40 ft. for Rs. 2,00,000/-). Holding there was no perversity or illegality and no case for interference, the Court dismissed the first appeals with no order as to costs and disposed of the stay applications as nothing survived.

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:17714

¶2

1 36-CA 5391-2012.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5391 OF 2012 IN FAST/10501/2012

¶5

The State Of Maharashtra And Another .. Applicants

¶6

Versus

¶7

Gangadhar Vishwanath Hamne And Another .. Respondents

¶8

WITH

¶9

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5392 OF 2012 IN FAST/10501/2012

¶10

WITH

¶11

FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 10501 OF 2012

¶12

AND

¶13

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5381 OF 2012 IN FAST/10440/2012

¶14

The State Of Maharashtra And Another .. Applicants

¶15

Versus

¶16

Nivrutti Kishan Kamble .. Respondent

¶17

WITH

¶18

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5382 OF 2012 IN FAST/10440/2012

¶19

WITH

¶20

FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 10440 OF 2012

¶21

1 of 10

¶22

2 36-CA 5391-2012.odt

¶23

AND

¶24

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5407 OF 2012 IN FAST/10476/2012

¶25

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

¶26

.. Applicants

¶27

Versus

¶28

Giyanoba Kishan Kamble .. Respondent

¶29

WITH

¶30

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5408 OF 2012 IN FAST/10476/2012

¶31

WITH

¶32

FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 10476 OF 2012

¶33

AND

¶34

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5395 OF 2012 IN FAST/10480/2012

¶35

The State Of Maharashtra And Another .. Applicants

¶36

Versus

¶37

Vishwanath Baba Hamne (Died)

¶38

Through L.Rs. Mallikarjun Vishwanath Hanme .. Respondent

¶39

WITH

¶40

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5396 OF 2012 IN FAST/10480/2012

¶41

WITH

¶42

FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 10480 OF 2012

¶43

AND

¶44

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5398 OF 2012 IN FAST/10484/2012

¶45

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

¶46

.. Applicants

¶47

2 of 10

¶48

3 36-CA 5391-2012.odt

¶49

Versus

¶50

Trimbak Vishwanath Hamne

¶51

.. Respondent

¶52

WITH

¶53

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5397 OF 2012 IN FAST/10484/2012

¶54

WITH

¶55

FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 10484 OF 2012

¶56

AND

¶57

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5399 OF 2012 IN FAST/10487/2012

¶58

The State Of Maharashtra And Another .. Applicants

¶59

Versus

¶60

Ankush Narayan Kamble

¶61

.. Respondent

¶62

WITH

¶63

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5400 OF 2012 IN FAST/10487/2012

¶64

WITH

¶65

FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 10487 OF 2012

¶66

AND

¶67

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5401 OF 2012 IN FAST/10491/2012

¶68

The State Of Maharashtra And Another .. Applicants

¶69

Versus

¶70

Sambha Vithal Durge .. Respondent

¶71

3 of 10

¶72

4 36-CA 5391-2012.odt

¶73

WITH

¶74

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5402 OF 2012 IN FAST/10491/2012

¶75

WITH

¶76

FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 10491 OF 2012

¶77

AND

¶78

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5403 OF 2012 IN FAST/10495/2012

¶79

The State Of Maharashtra And Another .. Applicants

¶80

Versus

¶81

Laxman Ramappa Hamne .. Respondent

¶82

WITH

¶83

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5404 OF 2012 IN FAST/10495/2012

¶84

WITH

¶85

FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 10495 OF 2012

¶86

AND

¶87

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5405 OF 2012 IN FAST/10498/2012

¶88

The State Of Maharashtra And Another .. Applicants

¶89

Versus

¶90

Shrawan Kishan Kamble .. Respondent

¶91

WITH

¶92

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5406 OF 2012 IN FAST/10498/2012

¶93

WITH

¶94

FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 10498 OF 2012

¶95

4 of 10

¶96

5 36-CA 5391-2012.odt

¶97

AND

¶98

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5393 OF 2012 IN FAST/10504/2012

¶99

The State Of Maharashtra And Another .. Applicants

¶100

Versus

¶101

Shripati Sadba Surnar and another

¶102

.. Respondents

¶103

WITH

¶104

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5394 OF 2012 IN FAST/10504/2012

¶105

WITH

¶106

FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 10504 OF 2012

¶107

AND

¶108

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5409 OF 2012 IN FAST/10507/2012

¶109

The State Of Maharashtra And Another .. Applicants

¶110

Versus

¶111

Osman Peersaheb Sayyed

¶112

.. Respondent

¶113

WITH

¶114

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5410 OF 2012 IN FAST/10507/2012

¶115

WITH

¶116

FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 10507 OF 2012

¶117

AND

¶118

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5385 OF 2012 IN FAST/10510/2012

¶119

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

¶120

.. Applicants

¶121

5 of 10

¶122

6 36-CA 5391-2012.odt

¶123

Versus

¶124

Bhanudas Dnyanoba Hawmare and others

¶125

.. Respondents

¶126

WITH

¶127

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5386 OF 2012 IN FAST/10510/2012

¶128

WITH

¶129

FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 10510 OF 2012

¶130

AND

¶131

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5389 OF 2012 IN FAST/10519/2012

¶132

The State Of Maharashtra And Another .. Applicants

¶133

Versus

¶134

Dnyanoba Nagorao Barkume

¶135

.. Respondent

¶136

WITH

¶137

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5390 OF 2012 IN FAST/10519/2012

¶138

WITH

¶139

FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 10519 OF 2012

¶140

AND

¶141

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5383 OF 2012 IN FAST/10523/2012

¶142

The State Of Maharashtra And Another .. Applicants

¶143

Versus

¶144

Datta Shrawan Kamble .. Respondent

¶145

6 of 10

¶146

7 36-CA 5391-2012.odt

¶147

WITH

¶148

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5384 OF 2012 IN FAST/10523/2012

¶149

WITH

¶150

FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 10523 OF 2012

¶151

Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for the Applicant No. 1. Mr. T. B. Bhosale, Advocate for the Applicant No. 2.

¶152

CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J. DATE : 08^th JULY, 2025.

¶153

PER COURT :-

¶154

CIVIL APPLICATIONS (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) :

¶155

Heard.

¶156

For the reasons recorded in the civil applications, the civil applications stand allowed. Delay of 1359 days stands condoned. Office to register first appeals.

¶157

The civil applications stand disposed of.

¶158

FIRST APPEALS :

¶159

These appeals are filed by the State and the acquiring body

¶160

against the claimants whose land acquisition references came to be allowed by way of impugned judgment and award dated

¶161

22.04.2008 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior

¶162

7 of 10

¶163

8 36-CA 5391-2012.odt

¶164

Division, Ahmedpur. All these appeals are arising out of the same land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Government for the acquiring body. The notification under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act came to be issued on 09.02.1999. The award was passed on 12.11.1998. The land came to be acquired for Urdhva Manar Project. While acquiring land the compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs. 60/- per sq. mtr. by the learned S.L.A.O. The claimants, therefore, filed land acquisition references claiming higher amount. The learned Court partly accepted the case of the claimants and enhanced the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 180/- per sq. mtr. The properties are house properties with plot/without plot.

¶165

The learned A.G.P. so also learned advocate Mr. Bhosale for the acquiring body vehemently submits that, the learned Reference Court has failed to appreciate that the compensation amount was rightly determined by the learned S.L.A.O. by considering the market rate prevalent at the time of acquisition. The learned Trial Court accepted the case of the claimants without there being any satisfactory evidence. The learned A.G.P. as well as Mr. Bhosale, learned advocate thus pray that the award be

¶166

8 of 10

¶167

9 36-CA 5391-2012.odt

¶168

quashed and set aside.

¶169

This Court has gone through the judgment and award. The learned Reference Court specifically considered the market price of properties in village Sangvi. The learned Reference Court considered the evidence of one of the claimants namely Dnyanoba Nagorao Barkume. The learned Reference Court considered that, the population of village is around 3000. There are facilities of higher education available within radius of 09 Kms. The village as at distance of 09 Kms. from taluka. There is Balaghat Sugar Factory at a distance of 03 Kms. One valuer Mr. Pokalwar was examined who stated in his evidence that price of open plot was around Rs. 500/- per sq. mtr. before acquisition of the properties of the claimants. The learned Reference Court thereafter considered that the house properties are constructed 10 years prior to the acquisition and awarded the rate.

¶170

The learned Reference Court while considering sale instances specifically considered two sale instances at Exh. 26 and 27. It was considered that the plot of 40/50 ft. was sold for consideration of Rs. 2,80,000/-. In another instance the property

¶171

9 of 10

¶172

10 36-CA 5391-2012.odt

¶173

was sold of 40/40 ft. plot for consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The learned Reference Court by relying upon these sale deeds enhanced the amount. This Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the judgment. The learned Reference Court has rightly considered the sale instances.

¶174

Considering all above, this Court finds that, no case is made out calling for interference at the hands of this Court. The first appeals, therefore, stand dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶175

CIVIL APPLICATIONS (FOR STAY) :

¶176

. In view of disposal of the first appeals, nothing survives in the civil applications for stay. The civil applications also stand disposed of.

¶177

( KISHORE C. SANT, J. )

¶178

P.S.B.

¶179

10 of 10

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Nivrutti Kishan Kamble

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Nivrutti Kishan Kamble

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Mah and Anr. Vs Rawan Satwaji Kamble

The State of Mah and Anr. Vs Rawan Satwaji Kamble

The State of Mah and Anr. Vs Ramchandra Manik Mekale and Ors.

Mahadev Sambhaji Mane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Satish S/O. Baburao Maske Vs Anisha W/O. Satish Maske

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs Nivrutti Kishan Kamble