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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 1359 days condoned and first appeals directed to be registered; the first appeals filed by the State and the acquiring body dismissed with no order as to costs; civil applications for stay disposed of.

Issue for consideration

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

Court's answer

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

Ratio / Principle

The learned Reference Court validly considered the market price of properties in village Sangvi, the evidence of claimant Dnyanoba Nagorao Barkume (population approx. 3000, higher education facilities within 09 Kms., taluka at 09 Kms., Balaghat Sugar Factory at 03 Kms.) and the evidence of valuer Mr. Pokalwar stating open plot price around Rs. 500/- per sq. mtr. before acquisition.

Key takeaways

There is no perversity or illegality in the Reference Court's judgment; the Reference Court rightly relied on the two sale instances at Exhs. 26 and 27 (plots of 40/50 ft. sold for Rs. 2,80,000/- and 40/40 ft. sold for Rs. 2,00,000/-) in enhancing the compensation.ratio¶173
No case is made out calling for interference by this Court; the first appeals stand dismissed with no order as to costs.ratio¶174
In view of disposal of the first appeals, nothing survives in the civil applications for stay; those civil applications also stand disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench (Kishore C. Sant, J., 08.07.2025; 2025:BHC-AUG:17715): Batch of civil applications by the State of Maharashtra and the acquiring body for condonation of a 1359-day delay in filing first appeals against the judgment and award dated 22.04.2008 of the Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Ahmedpur, which enhanced land-acquisition compensation (Urdhva Manar Project; Section 4 (1) notification dated 09.02.1999; SLAO award 12.11.1998) from Rs. 60/- to Rs. 180/- per sq. mtr. Condonation allowed; appeals registered. On merits the Court held the Reference Court had validly considered market prices at village Sangvi, the claimant's evidence, valuer Mr. Pokalwar's testimony of open plot rates around Rs. 500/- per sq. mtr., and two sale instances at Exhs. 26 and 27 (Rs. 2,80,000/- and Rs. 2,00,000/-), and found no perversity or illegality; first appeals dismissed, no order as to costs; stay applications disposed of as infructuous.

2025:BHC-AUG:17715

1 36-CA 5391-2012.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

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

The State Of Maharashtra And Another .. Applicants

Versus

Gangadhar Vishwanath Hamne And Another .. Respondents

WITH

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

WITH

FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 10501 OF 2012

AND

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

The State Of Maharashtra And Another .. Applicants

Versus

Nivrutti Kishan Kamble .. Respondent

WITH

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

WITH

FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 10440 OF 2012

1 of 10

2 36-CA 5391-2012.odt

AND

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

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

.. Applicants

Versus

Giyanoba Kishan Kamble .. Respondent

WITH

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

WITH

FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 10476 OF 2012

AND

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

The State Of Maharashtra And Another .. Applicants

Versus

Vishwanath Baba Hamne (Died)

Through L.Rs. Mallikarjun Vishwanath Hanme .. Respondent

WITH

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

WITH

FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 10480 OF 2012

AND

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

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

.. Applicants

2 of 10

3 36-CA 5391-2012.odt

Versus

Trimbak Vishwanath Hamne

.. Respondent

WITH

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

WITH

FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 10484 OF 2012

AND

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

The State Of Maharashtra And Another .. Applicants

Versus

Ankush Narayan Kamble

.. Respondent

WITH

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

WITH

FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 10487 OF 2012

AND

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

The State Of Maharashtra And Another .. Applicants

Versus

Sambha Vithal Durge .. Respondent

3 of 10

4 36-CA 5391-2012.odt

WITH

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

WITH

FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 10491 OF 2012

AND

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

The State Of Maharashtra And Another .. Applicants

Versus

Laxman Ramappa Hamne .. Respondent

WITH

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

WITH

FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 10495 OF 2012

AND

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

The State Of Maharashtra And Another .. Applicants

Versus

Shrawan Kishan Kamble .. Respondent

WITH

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

WITH

FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 10498 OF 2012

4 of 10

5 36-CA 5391-2012.odt

AND

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

The State Of Maharashtra And Another .. Applicants

Versus

Shripati Sadba Surnar and another

.. Respondents

WITH

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

WITH

FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 10504 OF 2012

AND

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

The State Of Maharashtra And Another .. Applicants

Versus

Osman Peersaheb Sayyed

.. Respondent

WITH

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

WITH

FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 10507 OF 2012

AND

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

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

.. Applicants

5 of 10

6 36-CA 5391-2012.odt

Versus

Bhanudas Dnyanoba Hawmare and others

.. Respondents

WITH

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

WITH

FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 10510 OF 2012

AND

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

The State Of Maharashtra And Another .. Applicants

Versus

Dnyanoba Nagorao Barkume

.. Respondent

WITH

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

WITH

FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 10519 OF 2012

AND

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

The State Of Maharashtra And Another .. Applicants

Versus

Datta Shrawan Kamble .. Respondent

6 of 10

7 36-CA 5391-2012.odt

WITH

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

WITH

FIRST APPEAL (STAMP) NO. 10523 OF 2012

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

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

PER COURT :-

CIVIL APPLICATIONS (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) :

Heard.

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

The civil applications stand disposed of.

FIRST APPEALS :

These appeals are filed by the State and the acquiring body

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

22.04.2008 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior

7 of 10

8 36-CA 5391-2012.odt

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.

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

8 of 10

9 36-CA 5391-2012.odt

quashed and set aside.

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.

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

9 of 10

10 36-CA 5391-2012.odt

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.

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.

CIVIL APPLICATIONS (FOR STAY) :

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

( KISHORE C. SANT, J. )

P.S.B.

10 of 10