Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2019 DAILYLAW 3584 (BOM)

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (THROUGH THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER) AND ANR. v. SMT. MAINABAI RAOJI MAHALE (DECEASED) THROUGH HER LEGAL HEIRS SHRI. JAGGANATH RAOJI MAHALE AND ORS.

FA/965/2019 · 2026-08-18

body2019

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

56-FA-965-19.doc Sayali IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 965 OF 2019 The State of Maharashtra Thr. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Others … Appellants V/s. Mainabai Raoji Mahale Deced. Thr. Her Lrs Jaggganath Raoji Mahale and Others … Respondents Mr. A.R. Patil, Additional G.P. for the appellants. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : AUGUST 18, 2026 P.C.: 1. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State has placed reliance upon the Government Resolutions dated 3 November 2016, 11 May 2018 and 13 August 2018. Under the said Government Resolutions, the State Government has taken a policy decision that where the compensation enhanced by the Reference Court does not exceed four times the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the first appeal filed by the State is liable to be withdrawn. The learned Additional Government Pleader submits that the present appeal falls within the scope of the said policy decision. 2. Upon perusal of the record and, in particular, the amount of compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and 1 SAYALI DEEPAK UPASANI Digitally signed by SAYALI DEEPAK UPASANI Date: 2026.08.18 18:27:41 +0530 56-FA-965-19.doc the enhanced amount granted by the Reference Court, it appears that the enhancement in the present case is within four times the amount originally awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The case, therefore, falls within the parameters prescribed under the aforesaid Government Resolutions. 3. In view of the aforesaid position and the policy decision of the State Government contained in the Government Resolutions referred to hereinabove, the first appeal is permitted to be withdrawn and is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn. 4. The Court fee, if any, paid on the appeal shall be refunded to the appellant in accordance with the applicable Rules. 5. In view of the disposal of the first appeal, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive and are accordingly disposed of. (AMIT BORKAR, J.) 2