Allowed¶19

Shri. Naresh S/O Santosh Bhaiswar v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector, Nagpur and Another

Bombay HC27 Jan 2026MCA/60/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land acquisition compensation review; error apparent on face of record; Joint Measurement Report (JMR) dated 15.06.1999 by Land Acquisition Officer; additional 47 fruit bearing trees (20 sweet lime, 27 orange) recorded on applicant's objection; trees omitted from compensation despite Para 25 finding document undisputed; review allowed; Rs.5,000/- per tree; Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench; First Appeal No.794 of 2014 [D]; MCA No.60 of 2026; Pravin S. Patil, J.; order dated 16.02.2026 reviewing judgment dated 24.09.2025.

What did the court decide?

Misc. Civil Application allowed; in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Court, the applicant is entitled to compensation for 47 fruit bearing trees at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per tree; no order as to costs. ¶19

Shri. Naresh S/O Santosh Bhaiswar vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector, Nagpur and Another — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment and order dated 24.09.2025 contains an error apparent on the face of the record by failing to consider, in the conclusion/compensation computation, the additional 47 fruit bearing trees recorded in the Joint Measurement Report dated 15.06.1999.

¶11

Court's answer

The Joint Measurement Report shows that a separate column prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer dated 15.06.1999 recorded, in addition to the earlier joint measurement, additional 47 fruit bearing trees, comprising 20 sweet lime trees and 27 orange trees.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Para 25 of the judgment under review had considered the Joint Measurement Report and recorded that the document was not disputed, yet while awarding the compensation there was no mention of these 47 trees.

¶16

Key takeaways

There is a prima facie error committed by the Court while counting the number of trees, and since it is an error apparent on the face of the record, the review application deserves to be allowed.ratio¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review (MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.60 OF 2026 in FIRST APPEAL NO.794 OF 2014 [D]), High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench (Pravin S. Patil, J.), decided 16.02.2026: The applicant sought review of the judgment and order dated 24.09.2025 on the ground that, although the Court relied upon the Joint Measurement Report (JMR) dated 15.06.1999 — which, on the applicant's objection, recorded in addition to the earlier joint measurement another 47 fruit bearing trees (20 sweet lime and 27 orange trees) — the concluding portion of the judgment omitted these trees while awarding compensation. The Court found that Para 25 of the judgment had treated the JMR as undisputed, yet the compensation awarded made no mention of the 47 trees, and held that a prima facie error apparent on the face of the record had been committed in counting the number of trees. Application allowed: over and above the compensation already awarded, the applicant is entitled to compensation for the 47 fruit bearing trees at Rs.5,000/- per tree; no order as to costs.

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:3140

¶2

1 65 MCA 60.26.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.60 OF 2026 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.794 OF 2014 [D]

¶5

[Shri Naresh s/o Santosh Bhaiswar .vs. State of Maharashtra and others]

¶6

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

¶8

Dr. Mrs. Renuka S. Sirpurkar, Advocate for Applicant/Appellant. Mr. G.S. Umale, AGP for Non-Applicant Nos.1 and 2/State. Mr. U.A. Gosavi, Advocate for Non-Applicant No.3.

¶9

CORAM : PRAVIN S. PATIL, J. DATED : 16.02.2026.

¶10

By this application, the applicant is seeking the review of the judgment and order dated 24.09.2025 passed by this Court in the matter.

¶11

The applicant came with a submission in the review application that this court though recorded in the order by relying upon the Joint Measurement Report (JMR) prepared on 15.06.1999, wherein on the objection of the present applicant, in addition to the earlier joint measurement, has included the other 47 fruit bearing trees. However, in the conclusion part of the judgment, this aspect was not considered, hence seeks review of the order.

¶12

The learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant no.3 has strongly opposed the application. According to him, there are different documents placed on record showing different number of trees. Therefore, considering all these documents, this court has passed the order and rightly dealt with the number of trees. According to him, if this submission of the applicant is accepted it would amount to reconsider the

¶13

2 65 MCA 60.26.odt

¶14

case of the applicant and hence the review application is not tenable.

¶15

In the present case, from the perusal of the Joint Measurement Report, it is clear that there is a separate column was prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer dated 15.06.1999 and under the column that in addition to the earlier joint measurement, has recorded of additional 47 fruit bearing trees i.e. 20 sweet limes trees and 27 orange trees.

¶16

It is also pertinent to note that this court in Para 25 of the judgment has considered this aspect by recording the finding that this document is not disputed in the matter, but while awarding the compensation, there is no mentioned of this 47 trees.

¶17

In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is a prima facie error committed by this court while counting the number of trees in the matter. Hence, considering the fact that there is an error apparent on the face of the record, the application filed by the applicant deserves to be allowed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order :

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

(a) Misc. Civil Application is allowed. (b) It is made clear that in addition to the compensation awarded by this court, the applicant is entitled for the compensation of 47 fruit bearing trees at the rate of Rs.5,000/- per tree.

¶20

¶21

to costs.

¶22

(PRAVIN S. PATIL, J.)

¶23

Gulande Signed by: A.S. GULANDE Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 24/02/2026 10:11:32

Shri. Naresh S/O Santosh Bhaiswar v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector, Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Naresh S/O Santosh Bhaiswar v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Collector, Nagpur and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vitthal Dinkar Garje vs National Highways Authority of India Proj. Implementation Unit-Washim Thr. in-Charge N.H.a.Amravati

Adarsh Ajay Nagwani vs State of Maharashtra Thr Pso City Kotwali Akola Tq and Dist Akola

Swapnil S/O Shrawan Maskar and Others vs the State of Maha Thr Pso, Khadan

Madhuri W/O Virendra Chinchkhede vs Virendra S/O Baliram Chinchkhede

Bhupendra S/O Pralhad Chavan vs Crc Jeweller Thr Its Proprietor Gokul Rameshchandra Chavan

Avinash S/O Sahebrao Patonde and 2 Others vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Ps, Khadan, Akola and Another