Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16090 (BOM)

STATE OF MAHA v. BABURAO KERBA JADHAV

FA/2053/2009 · 2026-10-01

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Tauseef 1 of 2 932-FA.2053.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 932 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2053 OF 2009 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VERSUS BABURAO KERBA JADHAV ... Mr. S. S. Dande, AGP for Appellant. Mr. Vivekanand V. Ingale, Advocate for the Respondent. ... CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 1st OCTOBER, 2026 P.C.:- 1. Since the acquisition proceedings pertain to the year 1984, the appeal is heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates for the respective parties. 2. By the present appeal, the Appellant/State is challenging the judgment and award dated 21.08.2002 passed by the learned Joint Civil Juge Senior Division, Osmanabad in LAR No.595/1991, whereby the learned Reference Court enhanced the compensation. 3. Learned Advocate for the Appellant submits that this Court has taken a view in First Appeal No.550 of 1993 decided on 05.08.2026 arising out of same acquisition proceeding. 4. In view of that, no case is made out to interfere with the judgment and award dated 21.08.2002 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Osmanabad in LAR No.595/1991. 2026:BHC-AUG:46636 Tauseef 2 of 2 932-FA.2053.2009 5. Upon perusal of order passed by this Court in First Appeal No.550 of 1993, I am inclined to adopt the same view in the present appeals. Therefore, present appeals are disposed of accordingly. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order:- O R D E R (i) The present appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The Claimant is entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) per acre for the acquired irrigated land and to that extent impugned award stands modified. (iii) The Claimant shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits, including interest under Sections 28 and 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in accordance with the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Kailash Shiva Rangari, reported in 2016 (3) Mh.L.J. 457. (iv) The Appellants shall pay the deficit court fees. (v) Rest of the impugned award stands confirmed. (vi) Award be drawn accordingly. (vii) Pending civil applications, if any, are also disposed of. (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)