940-CA-6200-2014.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 940 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6200 OF 2014 IN FAST/10279/2014 The State Of Maharashtra And Another VERSUS Ajit Aajinath Madhukar Tandale And Another WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6204 OF 2014 IN FAST/10253/2014 The State Of Maharashtra And Another VERSUS Dashrath Gopala Tandale (died L.rs.) Nanabhau Dashrath And Others WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6201 OF 2014 IN FAST/10279/2014 The State Of Maharashtra And Another VERSUS Ajit Aajinath Madhukar Tandale And Another WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6203 OF 2014 IN FAST/10282/2014 The State Of Maharashtra And Another VERSUS Ashabai Dinkar Tandale And Another WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6202 OF 2014 IN FAST/10282/2014 The State Of Maharashtra And Another VERSUS Ashabai Dinkar Tandale And Another WITH Shubham 2026:BHC-AUG:35649 940-CA-6200-2014.doc CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6205 OF 2014 IN FAST/10253/2014 The State Of Maharashtra And Another VERSUS Dashrath Gopala Tandale (died L.rs.) Nanabhau Dashrath And Others WITH FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 10279 OF 2014 The State Of Maharashtra And Another VERSUS Ajit Aajinath Madhukar Tandale And Another WITH FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 10253 OF 2014 The State Of Maharashtra And Another VERSUS Dashrath Gopala Tandale (died L.rs.) Nanabhau Dashrath And Others WITH FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 10282 OF 2014 The State Of Maharashtra And Another VERSUS Ashabai Dinkar Tandale And Another ... Mr. R. B. Dhaware, AGP for State. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 6 AUGUST 2026 P. C.: Order in Civil Applications for condonation of delay 1. These Civil Applications are filed for condonation of delay of 1664 days in filing respective First Appeals. Shubham 940-CA-6200-2014.doc 2. Considering the averments made therein, the Civil Application Nos.6200, 6204 and 6202 of 2014 are allowed and the delay is condoned. Order in First Appeals 3. The captioned First Appeals are not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on board. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the State. 5. By these Appeals, the Appellant-State assails the judgment and award dated 18th March 2009, passed by District Judge-III, Beed in LAR Nos.247, 248 and 249 of 2006 whereby compensation came to be enhanced to an extent slightly more than four times of the same granted by the SLAO. 6. Learned AGP submits that the compensation granted by the learned Reference Court is slightly more than four times of the compensation granted by the SLAO. 7. 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. 8. The perusal of impugned award clearly shows that the Reference Court has enhanced the compensation to an extent slightly more than four times the same granted by the SLAO. The learned Reference Court has relied upon sale instance below Exh.30 dated 17th May 1994 which was prior to Shubham 940-CA-6200-2014.doc the date of notification. Therefore, the same was rightly treated as comparable sale instance. 9. Therefore, I do not find any reason to intervene with the impugned order. Hence, the present First Appeals are dismissed. 10. In view of dismissal of the Appeals, pending Civil Applications, if any, do not survive and are disposed of accordingly. [SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.] Shubham