Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 17614 (BOM)

THE STATE OF MAH AND ORS v. BHADYA TETYA GAVIT AND ORS

FA/2013/2010 · 2026-10-06

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

306-FA-2010 (+5).odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 306 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2009 OF 2010 The State Of Maharashtra And Others VERSUS Reshma Hodlya Gavit AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 2011 OF 2010 The State Of Maharashtra And Others VERSUS Jayashri Nana Gavit AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 2012 OF 2010 The State Of Maharashtra And Others VERSUS Singa Dhedya Gavit AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 2010 OF 2010 The State Of Maharashtra And Others VERSUS Navgya Mithya Gavit And Others AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 2014 OF 2010 The State Of Maharashtra And Others VERSUS Devalya Nathya Gavit …… Mr. A.M. Phule, AGP for Appellant-State …… 307 FIRST APPEAL NO. 2013 OF 2010 The State Of Maharashtra And Others VERSUS Bhadya Tetya Gavit And Others …… Mr. D.R. Korde, AGP for Appellant-State …… 2026:BHC-AUG:47241 306-FA-2010 (+5).odt 2 CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : 06 OCTOBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard the learned AGPs for the Appellant/State. 2. By these appeals, the Appellant-State assail the Judgments and awards dated 31.08.2007 and 31.12.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nandurbar in L.A.R. Nos. 49/2005, 25/2005, 47/2005, 71/2005, 46/2005 and 22/2005. 3. Learned AGPs appeared in the respective matters submit that the compensation enhanced by the learned Reference Court does not exceed four times the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. 4. In view of the aforesaid submissions and having regard to the policy decision of the State Government contained in 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. 5. Therefore, I do not find any reason to intervene with the impugned order. Hence, the present Appeals are dismissed. 6. The Claimant is at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited by the State/acquiring body before the learned Reference Court, if any. 7. In view of dismissal of the Appeals, pending Civil Applications, if any, do not survive and are disposed of accordingly. [ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ] JUDGE S P Rane