*1* MIDC LATUR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

901 FIRST APPEAL NO.1228 OF 2010

MIDC Through it’s Regional Manager

VERSUS

Dattatraya Vishwanath Bhumkar And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4986 OF 2021

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1228 OF 2010

Dattatraya Vishwanath Bhumkar And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra, Through The Collector, Latur And

Another

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2512 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1228 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Dattatraya Vishwanath Bhumkar And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6303 OF 2011

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1228 OF 2010

Dattatraya Vishwanath Bhumkar And Ors

VERSUS

The Sate Of Maharashtra And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Amit S. Deshpande, Shri Amol

Vasmatkar and Shri Swapnil D. Joshi.

...

::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:22 :::

*2* MIDC LATUR

902 FIRST APPEAL NO.2016 OF 2008

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Latur..

VERSUS

Bashir Isulal Shaikh And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4543 OF 2015

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2019 OF 2008

Mustafa Waliullah Beg

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9366 OF 2015

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2024 OF 2008

Shivbai Nagnath Chavan

VERSUS

M I D C Latur And Another

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.15487 OF 2017

IN

CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.3976 OF 2016

Isulal Mahetab Shaikh Since Deceased Thr LRs Shaikh Ismail

And Anr

VERSUS

The Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Thr Its

Regional Manager, Latur And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2024 OF 2008

M I D C, Latur

VERSUS

Shivbai Nagnath Chavan And Anr ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:22 :::

*3* MIDC LATUR

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2026 OF 2008

M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Vasantrao Ambadasrao Jadhav And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2028 OF 2008

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Latur..

VERSUS

Achalkumar Shivdas Gangale And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2029 OF 2008

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Latur..

VERSUS

Limbraj Digamber Shinde And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2019 OF 2008

M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Mustafa Waliullah Beg And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9685 OF 2015

IN

CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.23813 OF 2015

Ismail Issulal Shaikh

VERSUS

MIDC Latur And Another

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2025 OF 2008

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Latur.. ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:22 :::

*4* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

Ayubkhan Nasibkhan Pathan And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2017 OF 2008

M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Mohmed Adil Mohd Sadiq Hadule And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2018 OF 2008

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Latur..

VERSUS

Isulal Mahetab Shaikh And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2020 OF 2008

M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Ismail Issulal Shaikh And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2021 OF 2008

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Latur..

VERSUS

Sudhakar Prabhu Swami And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2031 OF 2008

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Latur.

VERSUS

Chandrakant Ambadas Jadhav And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2032 OF 2008 ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:22 :::

*5* MIDC LATUR

M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Chunnumiya Isulal Shaikh And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2023 OF 2008

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Latur..

VERSUS

Lalita Bankatrao Bhise And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2022 OF 2008

M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Subhash Haribhau Bansode And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2027 OF 2008

M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Anusayabai Dhondiram Kadam And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.3766 OF 2008

Mustafa Waliullah Beg

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2030 OF 2008

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Latur..

VERSUS

Premilabai Vijaykumar Jadhav Kinikar And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Amit S. Deshpande, Shri Amol

Vasmatkar and Shri Swapnil D. Joshi. ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:22 :::

*6* MIDC LATUR

Advocate for the Claimants: in FA/2029/2008 and 3766/2008

Shri S.S. Thombre.

Advocate for the Claimants: in FA/2030/2008 Shri A.S. Lomte

...

903 FIRST APPEAL NO.3567 OF 2008

MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Rajdeep Dindayal Agrawal And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8080 OF 2019

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.3567 OF 2008

Rajdeep Dindayal Agrawal

VERSUS

MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer, MIDC, Latur And

Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2371 OF 2008

Rajdeep Dindayal Agrawal

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri C.R. Deshpande, Shri V.D.

Gunale and Shri K.D. Bade Patil

...

904 FIRST APPEAL NO.3972 OF 2008

Limbraj Tukaram Kaile

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8559 OF 2017

IN ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:22 :::

*7* MIDC LATUR

FIRST APPEAL NO.2804 OF 2009

Limbraj Tukaram Kaile

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9094 OF 2021

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2804 OF 2009

Limbraj Tukaram Kaile

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Collector, Latur and

Another

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2804 OF 2009

M I D C Through Regional Officer MIDC Latur

VERSUS

Limbraj Tukaram Kaile And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri A.N.Irpatgire

...

905 FIRST APPEAL NO.4292 OF 2008

Sayyad Ibrahim Hasansab And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8906 OF 2012

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.4292 OF 2008

Sayyad Ibrahim Hasansab And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:22 :::

*8* MIDC LATUR

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.349 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2332 OF 2009

Sayyed Ibrahim Hasansab And Ors

VERSUS

MIDC Through Regional Officer At Latur And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2332 OF 2009

M I D C Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Sayyed Ibrahim Hasansab And Ors

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D. Gunale

...

906 FIRST APPEAL NO.37 OF 2009

Kailash Gurunathrao Birajdar

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.145 OF 2009

M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Kailash Gurunathrao Birajdar And Ors

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri S.V.Warad

...

907 FIRST APPEAL NO.494 OF 2009

Rajkumar Ramchandra Warma And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:22 :::

*9* MIDC LATUR

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13312 OF 2011

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1975 OF 2010

Rajkumar Ramchandra Warma And Ors

VERSUS

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Latur And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1975 OF 2010

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Rajkumar Ramchandra Varma And Ors

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale

...

908 FIRST APPEAL NO.1029 OF 2009

M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Dnyanoba Namdeo Sarvade And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2662 OF 2021

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1029 OF 2009

Dhanraj Shankar Darkase

VERSUS

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Through The

Regional Officer, Latur And Others

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2343 OF 2019

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1029 OF 2009

Bhaurabai Sidheshwar Sarvade ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:22 :::

*10* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

MIDC Latur And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1851 OF 2019

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1029 OF 2009

Shiddeshwar Mahada Sarvade (died) Thr LRs Sunanda And

others

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14046 OF 2017

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1029 OF 2009

Dnyanoba Namdeo Sarode

VERSUS

MIDC Thr Regional Officer Latur And Ors

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri S.S.Halkude, Shri

C.V.Thombre, Shri M.V.Deshpande, Shri R.D. Biradar, Ms.

Madne (Narwate) Savita E. and Shri Narwadkar Mrigesh D.

Advocate for Applicants in CA/2662/2021 : Shri A.A. Joshi h/f

Shri Sharad V. Natu

...

909 FIRST APPEAL NO.1030 OF 2009

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Mohmedsab Dadansab Kabade LRs Chabanbee Mohmedsab

Kabade And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1542 OF 2020

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1030 OF 2009 ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:22 :::

*11* MIDC LATUR

Mohmedsab Dadansab Kabade LRs Chabanbee Mohmedsab

Kabade And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9475 OF 2021

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1032 OF 2009

Riyajoddin Chandsaheb Shaikh And Others

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Collector, Latur and

Others

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3156 OF 2020

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1032 OF 2009

Shaikh Khajoddin S/o Chand Sab

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.288 OF 2019

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1030 OF 2009

Mahommad Dadansab Kabade (died) Thr LRs Chabanbee

Andors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3036 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1030 OF 2009

Shabir Aminsab

VERSUS ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:22 :::

*12* MIDC LATUR

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13307 OF 2009

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1030 OF 2009

Mohamad Dadasaheb Kabade Died Through His L R S

Chabanbee W/o Mohmedsab Kabade And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1032 OF 2009

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Khajoddin Chandsab And Ors

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri C.D. Biradar, Shri R.D.Biradar

and Shri Deshpande Amit S.

...

910 FIRST APPEAL NO.1033 OF 2009

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Khajamiya Bashumiya Pathan And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1031 OF 2009

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Shrimant Rama Upade And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.629 OF 2009

M I D C Latur

VERSUS ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:22 :::

*13* MIDC LATUR

Dattu Vitthal Chame And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9446 OF 2021

IN

CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.24104 OF 2021

Dattu Vitthal Chame And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Thr Its Collector, Latur And ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.536 OF 2009

M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Proposed Hindu Khatik Magasvargiya Shakair Gruh Nirman

Sanstha And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.336 OF 2009

Proposed Hindu Khatik Magaswargiya Sahakari Graha Nirman

Sanstha

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9453 OF 2016

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1033 OF 2009

Khajamiya Bashumiya Pathan Since Deceased Thr His LRs And

Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale, Shri

R.B.Deshmukh and Shri Katneshwarkar P.R. a/w Shri Fayaz

Patel.

Advocate for the Claimants: in FA 1031/2009 and 336/2009 Shri ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:22 :::

*14* MIDC LATUR

S.N. Lale Yelwatkar.

...

911 FIRST APPEAL NO.1866 OF 2009

Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Chandrakant Limbaji Patil LRs Usha Chandrkant Patil and Ors

WITH

CROSS OBJECTION (STAMP) NO.616 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1866 OF 2009

Chandrakant Limbaji Patil Died Thrugh LRs Usha Chandrakant

Patil And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Gunale V.D.

...

912 FIRST APPEAL NO.2690 OF 2009

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Udaykumar S/o. Vainjnath Pensalwar And Ors.

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri More P. P.

...

913 FIRST APPEAL NO.2715 OF 2009

Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Bhimrao Babruwan Kamble And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2731 OF 2009

Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:22 :::

*15* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

Abdul Rashid Haji Shaikh And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2717 OF 2009

Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Manjusha Shrikrishna Disit And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2724 OF 2009

Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Ajay Vinayakrao Hamadapurkar And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2725 OF 2009

Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Safiabegum Imansab Sahaik And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4734 OF 2014

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2717 OF 2009

Manjusha Shrikrishna Dixit

VERSUS

MIDC Through Regional Manager Latur And Another

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3057 OF 2009

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2726 OF 2009

Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Atul Vinayakrao Hamdapurkar And Ors ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:22 :::

*16* MIDC LATUR

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3061 OF 2009

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2725 OF 2009

Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Safiabegum Imansab Sahaik And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3069 OF 2009

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2727 OF 2009

Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Dnyanoba Gangaram Kamble And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3079 OF 2009

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2716 OF 2009

Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Mrunal Shrikrishna Dixit And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2716 OF 2009

Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Mrunal Shrikrishna Dixit And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2726 OF 2009

Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Atul Vinayakrao Hamdapurkar And Ors ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:22 :::

*17* MIDC LATUR

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2727 OF 2009

Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Dnyanoba Gangaram Kamble And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2730 OF 2009

Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Abhijeet Ramvilas Mandhane And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4731 OF 2014

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2724 OF 2009

Vinayakrao Hamdapurkar

VERSUS

MIDC Through Regional Manager Latur And Another

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2968 OF 2014

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2726 OF 2009

Vinayakrao Hamdapurkar

VERSUS

MIDC Through Regional Manager Latur And Another

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3083 OF 2009

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2730 OF 2009

Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Abhijeet Ramvilas Mandhane And Ors ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:22 :::

*18* MIDC LATUR

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3089 OF 2009

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2724 OF 2009

Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Ajay Vinayakrao Hamadapurkar And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3087 OF 2009

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2731 OF 2009

Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Abdul Rashid Haji Shaikh And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4732 OF 2014

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2716 OF 2009

Mrunal Shrikrishna Dixit

VERSUS

MIDC Through Regional Manager Latur And Another

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar, Shri Amit

S. Deshpande, Shri Anuj Fulpagar, Shri Fayaz Patel, Shri Amol

Vasmatkar and Swapnil D. Joshi

…

914 FIRST APPEAL NO.2720 OF 2009

Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Dattatraya Pamparao Jawalkar And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3071 OF 2009 ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:22 :::

*19* MIDC LATUR

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2720 OF 2009

Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Dattatraya Pamparao Jawalkar And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3535 OF 2021

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2720 OF 2009

Dattatraya Pamparao Jawalkar And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra, Through District Collector, Latur And

Another

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Gunale V.D.

...

915 FIRST APPEAL NO.2767 OF 2009

M I D C Through Divisional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Pandurang Tulshiram Chame And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Gunale V.D.

...

916 FIRST APPEAL NO.3137 OF 2009

Madhav Digambarrao Suryawanshi

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors

...

Advocate for the Claimant Shri Pawar D.B.

...

917 FIRST APPEAL NO.649 OF 2010

MIDC Through Its Regional Manager ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:22 :::

*20* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

Chanda Madanlal Deshadla And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.653 OF 2010

MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Kamladevi Gopikishan Agrawal And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.652 OF 2010

MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Ranoji Mahadeo Katke And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.654 OF 2010

MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Bharti Sanjay Kotecha And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.655 OF 2010

MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Rekha Vishnu Shirole And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Patil G.N. and Shri Patil

Indrale Anand V.

...

918 FIRST APPEAL NO.722 OF 2010

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through

Divisional Officer, Latur

VERSUS

Hemant Jaywantrao Vaidya and Ors ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:23 :::

*21* MIDC LATUR

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.727 OF 2010

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through

Regional Manager Latur

VERSUS

Pandharinath Raosaheb Deshmukh

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2021 OF 2012

Dr Pandharinath Raosaheb Deshmukh

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2020 OF 2012

Hemant Jayantrao Vaidya And Anr

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Patil N. P. Jamalpurkar

...

919 FIRST APPEAL NO.1141 OF 2010

MIDC Throug Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Bashir Nabisaheb Shaikh And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1145 OF 2010

MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Bharatbai Kisan Kharose And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1142 OF 2010 ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:23 :::

*22* MIDC LATUR

MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Bhagirathibai Gyanoba Boke And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3371 OF 2020

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1142 OF 2010

Bhagirathibai Gyanoba Boke

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra, Thr Collector, Latur

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.3417 OF 201

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1151 OF 2010

Mubarak Nabisaheb Shaikh

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Ad Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1144 OF 2010

MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Shivram Hanmant Chavan And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1143 OF 2010

MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Tukaram Lingappa Utage (died) LRs Shakuntalabai And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1147 OF 2010

MIDC Through Its Regional Manager ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:23 :::

*23* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

Shankar Tukaram Aayalane And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1149 OF 2010

MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Trimbak Digamber Tigle And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1151 OF 2010

MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Mubarak Nabisaheb Shaikh And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3370 OF 2020

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1151 OF 2010

Mubarak Nabisaheb Shaikh

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Thr Collector, Latur And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1148 OF 2010

MIDC Throug Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Nandanbai Narayan Ghodke And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate

h/f Shri Gundre Suraj V.

...

920 FIRST APPEAL NO.1146 OF 2010

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through

Divisional Officer, Latur ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:23 :::

*24* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

Sidramappa Bhujangrao Birajdar And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Kale Ajeet B. and Shri V.D.

Gunale

...

921 FIRST APPEAL NO.1150 OF 2010

MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Salar Ismailkhan Pathan And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D. Gunale and Shri

V.G.Godale

...

922 FIRST APPEAL NO.1229 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Vishnu Kishanrao Shinde And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2530 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1229 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Vishnu Kishanrao Shinde And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri A.S.Deshpande and Shri

Swapnil D. Joshi

...

923 FIRST APPEAL NO.1232 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Sayyad Mohd. Jahid Hussin S/o Kifayat Hussain And Ors ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:23 :::

*25* MIDC LATUR

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17750 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1221 OF 2010

Vasant Vishnuram Sadanande And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6630 OF 2011

IN

CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.13061 OF 2011

Mathurabai Pandurng Bansode

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2514 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1232 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Sayyad Mohd. Jahid Hussin S/o Kifayat Hussain And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2516 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1233 OF 2010

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through

Regional Manager

VERSUS

Jagdish Vishnudasji Dhoot And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2524 OF 2010

IN ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:23 :::

*26* MIDC LATUR

FIRST APPEAL NO.1221 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Vasant Vishnuram Sadanande And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1220 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Mathurabai Pandurng Bansode And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1230 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Anandibai Uddhavrao Sarkale Adn Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1233 OF 2010

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through

Regional Manager

VERSUS

Jagdish Vishnudasji Dhoot And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1247 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Bharat Vijay Ranjankar And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2520 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1230 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Manager ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:23 :::

*27* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

Anandibai Uddhavrao Sarkale and Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1221 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Vasant Vishnuram Sadanande And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2522 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1247 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Bharat Vijay Ranjankar And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2526 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1227 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Nagnath Vitthal Chame And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1227 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Nagnath Vitthal Chame And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1225 OF 2019

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1227 OF 2010

Nagnath Vitthal Chame And Ors ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:23 :::

*28* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Shri A.S.Deshpande, Shri

Swapnil D. Joshi and Shri Amol Vasmatkar

...

924 FIRST APPEAL NO.1303 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Radhabai Vaijinath Utage And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8786 OF 2013

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1309 OF 2010

Shaikh Mujamil Miyalal

VERSUS

Divisional Manager, MIDC Latur And Others

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12325 OF 2011

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1315 OF 2010

Kausalyabai Marut Khaimode

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1313 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Radhabai Limbaji Adane And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1314 OF 2010 ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:23 :::

*29* MIDC LATUR

MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Keshav Tukaram Gaikwad And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1315 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Kausalyabai Marut Khaimode And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14004 OF 2021

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1315 OF 2010

Kausalyabai Maruti Khaimode (died), through LRs And others

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra and another.

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14845 OF 2011

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1313 OF 2010

Radhabai Limbaji Adane

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14108 OF 2018

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1309 OF 2010

Shaikh Miyalal Mohammad Hasan Died Thr LRs Shaikh

Saberabee Miyanlal Died Thr LRs Fazal And Ors

VERSUS

The MIDC Through Regional Manager Latur And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12331 OF 2011 ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:23 :::

*30* MIDC LATUR

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1307 OF 2010

Somnath Ramling Waghmare

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12323 OF 2011

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1312 OF 2010

Ramkunwarbai Badrinarayan Samani And Anr

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1307 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Somnath Ramling Waghmare And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1312 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Ramkunwarbai Badrinarayan Samany And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1309 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Sk. Ismail S/o Miyalal And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1317 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Manager ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:23 :::

*31* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

Bhimrao Laxman Kale And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Kale Ajeet B. and Shri V.D.

Gunale

...

925 FIRST APPEAL NO.1310 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Pandurang Gopal Ubale And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12326 OF 2011

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1310 OF 2010

Pandurang Gopal Ubale

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12334 OF 2011

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1316 OF 2010

Mohan Suryabhan Shikhare

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1316 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Mohan Suryabhan Shikhare And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Kale Ajeet B.

... ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:23 :::

*32* MIDC LATUR

926 FIRST APPEAL NO.2040 OF 2010

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Its

Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Tatabbabi Rahman Sayyed Abdul Rahman And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9091 OF 2021

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1626 OF 2010

Vijaykumar Dattatray Kulkarni (deceased) Thr Lrs. Trimbak

Vijaykumar Kulkarni

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur Andanother

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13564 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2039 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Vijaykumar Dattatrayarao Kulkarni And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13566 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2040 OF 2010

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Its

Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Tatabbabi Rahman Sayyed Abdul Rahman And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2039 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:23 :::

*33* MIDC LATUR

Vijaykumar Dattatrayarao Kulkarni And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1626 OF 2010

Vijaykumar Dattatraya Kulkarni

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1577 OF 2010

Tayababi Rahman Sayyed Abdul Rahman

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar, Shri Anuj

Fulfagar and Shri Fayaz K. Patel

...

927 FIRST APPEAL NO.2144 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Indrajeet Marutirao Waghmare And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9219 OF 2013

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2145 OF 2010

Prasad Prabhakarrao Udgrkar And Anr

VERSUS

The Regional Officer MIDC Latur And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9134 OF 2013

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2144 OF 2010

::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:23 :::

*34* MIDC LATUR

Indrajeet Marutirao Waghmare And Ors

VERSUS

The Regional Officer MIDC Latur And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2145 OF 2010

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Its

Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Prasad Prabhakarrao Udgrkar And Ors

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Deshmukh Rajendra S.

Deshmukh, Senior Advocate a/w Ms.Ashwini Sahastrabudhe i/by

Shri Devang R. Deshmukh

...

928 FIRST APPEAL NO.2315 OF 2010

MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Madhav Nagorao Pinate And Ors

WITH

CROSS OBJECTION (STAMP) NO.20738 OF 20

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2308 OF 2010

Mir Shabbir Ali S/o Mir Sr Ali Sayyad

VERSUS

The MIDC, Latur And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2308 OF 2010

MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Shabbir Ali Mirsaheb Ali And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2314 OF 2019 ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:23 :::

*35* MIDC LATUR

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2315 OF 2010

Shivaji Nagorao Pinate

VERSUS

The MIDC Through Its Divisional Officer, Latur And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3124 OF 2021

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2315 OF 2010

Madhav Nagorao Pinate (died) Thr LRs Sham And Ors

VERSUS

MIDC Through Divisional Officer And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8728 OF 2015

IN

CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.18459 OF 2014

Madhav Nagorao Pinate Died LRs Sham And Ors

VERSUS

MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer Latur And Others

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar and Shri

Adgaonkar Ravibhushan

...

929 FIRST APPEAL NO.2316 OF 2010

MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Laxman Malappa Chavan And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6184 OF 2011

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2312 OF 2010

Prakash Daulatrao Mane ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:23 :::

*36* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer Latur And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2306 OF 2010

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Shaikh Khalil Ahmed Mohammad Shaboddin And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2307 OF 2010

MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Baburao Ramrao Bhalerao And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2311 OF 2010

MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Manohar Limbaji Pisal And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2312 OF 2010

MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Prakash Daulatrao Mane And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2313 OF 2010

MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Pandhari Shivaji Bhandare And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2318 OF 2010 ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:23 :::

*37* MIDC LATUR

MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Ajay Dhullappa Abmesange And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8185 OF 2019

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2318 OF 2010

Ajay Dhullappa Ambesange And Ors

VERSUS

MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2310 OF 2010

MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Bhanudas Vitthal Walse And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2304 OF 2010

MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Maruti Annappa Shinde And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2305 OF 2010

MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Mohd. Hasan Turab Saheb Fakir And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2319 OF 2010

MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Narayan Shankar Sangekar And Ors ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:23 :::

*38* MIDC LATUR

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2320 OF 2010

MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Ramrao Raosaheb Mane And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2309 OF 2010

MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Tayappa Brama Gaikwad And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2317 OF 2010

MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Hiridas Narayan Panchal And Ors

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Patil N. P. Jamalpurkar

...

930 FIRST APPEAL NO.2463 OF 2010

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Jayawantrao Narayanrao Indurkar And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13905 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2523 OF 2010

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Chandsultan Walikhan Pathan And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14354 OF 2017 ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:23 :::

*39* MIDC LATUR

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2528 OF 2010

Rameshwar Gopal Sude U/g Of Anjana Gopal Sude

VERSUS

MIDC Through Its Regional Office At Latur And Others

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2528 OF 2010

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Tulshiram Namdeo Sude And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13911 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2471 OF 2010

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Vilas Ramchandra Pethe And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13889 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2470 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Bhagwan Dattatraya Kulkarni Died Th LRs Deelip Bhagwanra

Kulkarni And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2523 OF 2010

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Chandsultan Walikhan Pathan And Anr

WITH ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:23 :::

*40* MIDC LATUR

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.18522 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2528 OF 2010

Tulshiram Namdeo Sude And Anr

VERSUS

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13893 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2528 OF 2010

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Tulshiram Namdeo Sude And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13895 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2529 OF 2010

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Jsubhash Shivram Sadafule (died) LRs Anita Subhash Sadafule

And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2524 OF 2010

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Walikhan Hamidkhan Pathan And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2525 OF 2010

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Jugalkishore Shrikrishna Darak And Anr ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:23 :::

*41* MIDC LATUR

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2465 OF 2010

IN

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3093 OF 2011

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Uddhav Narayan Dandime And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2471 OF 2010

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Vilas Ramchandra Pethe And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2529 OF 2010

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Jsubhash Shivram Sadafule (died) LRs Anita Subhash Sadafule

And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13909 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2465 OF 2010

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Uddhav Narayan Dandime And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13915 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2524 OF 2010

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Walikhan Hamidkhan Pathan And Anr ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:23 :::

*42* MIDC LATUR

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2470 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Bhagwan Dattatraya Kulkarni Died Th LRs Deelip Bhagwanra

Kulkarni And Ors

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Satish S. Manale

Advocate for the Claimants: in FA 2470/2010 Shri A.A. Joshi h/f

Shri Sharad V. Natu

...

931 FIRST APPEAL NO.2487 OF 2010

Pradeep Laxmanrao Reddi

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And O Rs

...

Advocate for the Appellant/ Claimant Shri V.D.Gunale

...

932 FIRST APPEAL NO.2526 OF 2010

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Pandurang Govindrao Komatwad And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13907 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2526 OF 2010

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Pandurang Govindrao Komatwad And Ors

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Satish S. Manale

...

933 FIRST APPEAL NO.2604 OF 2010 ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:23 :::

*43* MIDC LATUR

Prasad Prabhakarrao Udgirkar And Anr

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9095 OF 2021

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2605 OF 2010

Indrajit Marutirao Waghmare And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra, Through The Collector, Latur And

Another

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2605 OF 2010

Indrajit Marutirao Waghmare And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Deshmukh Rajendra S., Senior

Advocate a/w Ms.Ashwini Sahastrabudhe i/by Shri Devang R.

Deshmukh

...

934 FIRST APPEAL NO.28 OF 2011

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation Through

Divisional Officer Divisional Office Latur

VERSUS

Mhammad Khayyum Rukmoddin Patel Th Power Of Attorney

Mhammad Salim Through LRs Mohd Salim And Ors

WITH

CROSS OBJECTION (STAMP) NO.22287 OF 20

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.28 OF 2011

Mhammad Khayyum Rukmoddinatel Th Power Of Attorney ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:23 :::

*44* MIDC LATUR

Mhammad Salim Th LRs Mohd Salim And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra and Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13694 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.28 OF 2011

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corpn Through Divnl

Officer Divisional Office Latur

VERSUS

Mhammad Khayyum Rukmoddin Patel Th Power Of Att

Mhammad Salim Th LRs Mohd Salim And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13780 OF 2011

IN

CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.21110 OF 2011

Madhav Gyanoba Padole

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13702 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.30 OF 2011

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corpn Through Divnl

Officer Divisional Office Latur

VERSUS

Mohammad Ismail Rukmoddin Patel And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2337 OF 2010

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corpn Through Divnl

Officer Divisional Office Latur

VERSUS ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:23 :::

*45* MIDC LATUR

Madhav Gyanoba Padole And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.30 OF 2011

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corpn Through Divnl

Officer Divisional Office Latur

VERSUS

Mohammad Ismail Rukmoddin Patel And Ors

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar and Shri

Fayaz K. Patel

...

935 FIRST APPEAL NO.29 OF 2011

MIDC Through Its Divisional Officer Divisional Office Latur

VERSUS

Babubhai Kondaji Bagwan And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13692 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.29 OF 2011

MIDC Through Its Divisional Officer Divisional Office Latur

VERSUS

Babubhai Kondaji Bagwan And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3312 OF 2020

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.29 OF 2011

Babubhai Kondaji Bagwan (died) Mumtajbi Ors

VERSUS

MIDC Through Its Divisional Officer Divisional Office Latur

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate

h/f Shri Shri Gundre Suraj V. and Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar

... ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:23 :::

*46* MIDC LATUR

936 FIRST APPEAL NO.219 OF 2011

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through

Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Govind Baburao Holkar And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14674 OF 2018

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.219 OF 2011

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through

Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Govind Baburao Holkar And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: : Shri G.K. Sontakke and Smt.P.G.

Sontakke

...

937 FIRST APPEAL NO.3562 OF 2011

MIDC Thr Divisional Officer, Latur

VERSUS

Pandurang Sopan Gurme And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14550 OF 2018

IN

CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.2214 OF 2013

Pralhad Nivrutti Panale And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2092 OF 2013

IN

CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.2214 OF 2013 ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:23 :::

*47* MIDC LATUR

Pralhad Nivrutti Panale And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2788 OF 2013

IN

CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.4635 OF 2013

Pandurang Sopan Gurme

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11699 OF 2011

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.3562 OF 2011

MIDC Thr Divisional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Pandurang Sopan Gurme And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11707 OF 2011

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.3565 OF 2011

MIDC Through Its Divisional Officer

VERSUS

Laxman Shetiba Jadhav And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11709 OF 2011

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.3563 OF 2011

MIDC Through Its Divisional Officer

VERSUS

Pralhad Nivrutti Panal And Ors

::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:23 :::

*48* MIDC LATUR

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.3563 OF 2011

MIDC Through Its Divisional Officer

VERSUS

Pralhad Nivrutti Panal And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.3565 OF 2011

MIDC Through Its Divisional Officer

VERSUS

Laxman Shetiba Jadhav And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.3567 OF 2011

MIDC Through Its Divisional Officer

VERSUS

Bhagirthibai Bhanudas Walse And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.3568 OF 2011

MIDC Through Its Divisional Officer

VERSUS

Pundlik Sangram Gobe And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11701 OF 2011

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.3567 OF 2011

MIDC Through Its Divisional Officer

VERSUS

Bhagirthibai Bhanudas Walse And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11703 OF 2011

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.3568 OF 2011 ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:23 :::

*49* MIDC LATUR

MIDC Through Its Divisional Officer

VERSUS

Pundlik Sangram Gobe And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri P.R.Katneshwarkar and Shri

Anuj Fulfagar

...

938 FIRST APPEAL NO.3564 OF 2011

MIDC Through Its Divisional Officer

VERSUS

Baburao Yashwantrao Birajdar And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1963 OF 2019

IN

CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.29793 OF 2017

Baburao Yashwantrao Birajdar And Anr

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11705 OF 2011

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.3564 OF 2011

MIDC Through Its Divisional Officer

VERSUS

Baburao Yashwantrao Birajdar And Ors

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri P.R.Katneshwarkar

...

939 FIRST APPEAL NO.20 OF 2012

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:23 :::

*50* MIDC LATUR

Maheshwar Shamrao Kulkarni And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.25 OF 2012

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Mushir Muniroddin Shaikh And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.27 OF 2012

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Ankush Gopinath Ghangave And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.28 OF 2012

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Kamlakar Madhavrao Karyakarte And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.29 OF 2012

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Dadarao Dagadu Bhadake And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.972 OF 2012

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Prasad Padmakarrao Andurkar And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.974 OF 2012

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:23 :::

*51* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

Shankarappa Mahadappa Waghmare And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.973 OF 2012

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Sunanda Suresh Inamdar And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.26 OF 2012

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Prabhakar Mahadling Basmatkar And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.21 OF 2012

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Maharudra Shivrajappa Mathdev And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.22 OF 2012

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Namdeo Balaji Mandade(died) LRs Dhanajay Namdeo Mandade

And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.23 OF 2012

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Kusumbai Jaiprakash Mane And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.24 OF 2012 ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:23 :::

*52* MIDC LATUR

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Dnyaneshwar Nagnath Jadhav And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.30 OF 2012

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Vinayak Pandurang Kulkarni And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Bhumkar R.P.

...

940 FIRST APPEAL NO.160 OF 2012

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through

regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Dilip Shankarrao Kulkarni (Lakhangaonkar) And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.161 OF 2012

MIDC Throug Regional Manager

VERSUS

Suresh Shankarrao Kulkarni And Ors

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri C.R.Deshpande

...

941 FIRST APPEAL NO.1233 OF 2013

Chandrakant Nagnath Birle

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.3050 OF 2013

::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:23 :::

*53* MIDC LATUR

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation,latur

VERSUS

Chandrakant Nagnath Birle And Another

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.538 OF 2013

Nagnath Rama Yerme

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.3047 OF 2013

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation, Latur

VERSUS

Laxman Gyana Tigile And Another

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.539 OF 2013

Laxuman Gyana Tigile

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.540 OF 2013

Shivaji Vithalrao Narhare

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.541 OF 2013

Suresh Nagnath Birle

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.3048 OF 2013 ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:23 :::

*54* MIDC LATUR

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation,latur

VERSUS

Sueh Nagnath Birle And Another

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Gunale V.D.

...

942 FIRST APPEAL NO.1532 OF 2013

Suresh Ramchandra Varma

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2565 OF 2013

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation,latur

VERSUS

Chandrakant Dnyanoba Sude And Others

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6114 OF 2015

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2563 OF 2013

Ramchandra Sundaram Varma Died Thr LRs Suresh Ramchandra

Varma

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1533 OF 2013

Ramchandra Sundaram Varma Died LRs Suresh Ramchandra

Varma

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

WITH ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:23 :::

*55* MIDC LATUR

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6116 OF 2015

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2564 OF 2013

Suresh Ramchandra Varma

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1534 OF 2013

Chandrakant Dnyanoba Sude And Others

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2564 OF 2013

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation through

Regional Manager MIDC Latur

VERSUS

Suresh Ramchandra Varma And Another

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2563 OF 2013

Maharashtra State Industrial Corporation, Latur

VERSUS

Ramchandra Sundaram Varma And Another

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri P.V. Mandlik, Senior Advocate

h/f Shri Deshpande Amit S.

...

943 FIRST APPEAL NO.225 OF 2016

MIDC Thr Its Regional Officer At Latur

VERSUS

Shantabai Kisanrao Saudagar Died Her LRs Kisan And Others

WITH ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:24 :::

*56* MIDC LATUR

FIRST APPEAL NO.228 OF 2016

MIDC Thr Its Regional Officer At Latur

VERSUS

Kisanrao Ramchandra Saudagar Died His LRs Laxman Kisan

Saudagar And Others

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.229 OF 2016

MIDC Thr Its Regional Officer At Latur

VERSUS

Nagnath Kisanrao Saudagar And Another

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri H.V.Patil and Smt.Sujata Puri

...

944 FIRST APPEAL NO.226 OF 2016

MIDC Thr Its Divisional Officer Division Office, Latur

VERSUS

Gyanoba Shivba Dandime And Another

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.16260 OF 2015

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.226 OF 2016

MIDC Thr Its Divisional Officer Division Office, Latur

VERSUS

Gyanoba Shivba Dandime And Another

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri M.B.Jadhav, Shri S.C. Swami

and Shri Fayaz K. Patel

...

945 FIRST APPEAL NO.624 OF 2016

Hariram Shivram Shelke

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Another ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:24 :::

*57* MIDC LATUR

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.626 OF 2016

Shrirang Hariram Shelke And Others

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.627 OF 2016

Dhondiram Gyanba Ige

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1435 OF 2017

MIDC Thr Its Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Hariram Shivram Shelke And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.625 OF 2016

Pandurang Narayanrao Shelke

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1434 OF 2017

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Its

Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Pandurang Narayanrao Shelke And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri A.N. Irpatgire

...

946 FIRST APPEAL NO.2481 OF 2016 ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:24 :::

*58* MIDC LATUR

Regional Officer MIDC Latur

VERSUS

Shobha Nagnath Kaname And Others

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2644 OF 2021

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2481 OF 2016

Shobha Nagnath Kaname And Others

VERSUS

Regional Officer MIDC Latur And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.4502 OF 2016

Shobha Nagnath Kaname And Others

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri A.N. Irpatgire

...

947 FIRST APPEAL NO.1253 OF 2017

MIDC Thr Divisional Officer, Division Office, Latur

VERSUS

Shivaji Ganpati Kamble And Anr

...

...

948 FIRST APPEAL NO.1436 OF 2017

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Its

Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Dhondiram Gyanba Ige And Anr

WITH ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:24 :::

*59* MIDC LATUR

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4577 OF 2020

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1436 OF 2017

Dhondiram Gyanba Ige

VERSUS

The Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through

Its Regional Manager At Latur And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri A.N.Irpatgire

...

949 FIRST APPEAL NO.3650 OF 2017

The Regional Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development

Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Girdhar Babu @ Malu Kamble And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13988 OF 2021

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.3650 OF 2017

Girdhar Balu @ Malu Kamble (died), through his LRs And

others.

VERSUS

MIDC, Latur and others

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Kulkrni Girish N. (Mardikar).

...

950 FIRST APPEAL NO.3932 OF 2017

Regional Officer, MIDC, Latur And Ors

VERSUS

Pradeep Dadarao Patil

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11002 OF 2017

IN ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:24 :::

*60* MIDC LATUR

FIRST APPEAL NO.3932 OF 2017

Regional Officer, MIDC, Latur And Ors

VERSUS

Pradeep Dadarao Patil

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11009 OF 2017

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.3934 OF 2017

MIDC Thr Its Regional Manager, Latur And Anr

VERSUS

Balu Venkoba Ghodake (died) Thr LRs Venkat And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7232 OF 2021

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.3934 OF 2017

Balu Venkoba Ghodake (died) Thr LRs Venkat And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Through The Collector, Latur and

Others

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11004 OF 2017

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.3935 OF 2017

MIDC Thr Its Regional Manager, Latur And Anr

VERSUS

Dnyoba Piraji Pitle (died) Thr LRs Shivkanta (died)

Pandharinath Dnyanoba Pitle And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.3934 OF 2017

MIDC Thr Its Regional Manager, Latur And Anr

VERSUS

Balu Venkoba Ghodake (died) Thr LRs Venkat And Ors ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:24 :::

*61* MIDC LATUR

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.3933 OF 2017

MIDC Thr Its Regional Manager, Latur And Anr

VERSUS

Kadir Fatrumiya Sahikh (died) Thr LRs Rukhiyabegum And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.3935 OF 2017

MIDC Thr Its Regional Manager, Latur And Anr

VERSUS

Dnyoba Piraji Pitle (died) Thr LRs Shivkanta (died)

Pandharinath Dnyanoba Pitle And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7230 OF 2021

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.3933 OF 2017

Kadir Fatrumiya Sahikh (died) Thr LRs Rukhiyabegum And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Through The Collector, Latur and

Others

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7231 OF 2021

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.3935 OF 2017

Dnyanoba Piraji Pitle (died) Thr LRs Shivkanta

(died)pandharinath Dnyanoba Pitle And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Through The Collector, Latur and

Others

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11007 OF 2017

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.3933 OF 2017 ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:24 :::

*62* MIDC LATUR

MIDC Thr Its Regional Manager, Latur And Anr

VERSUS

Kadir Fatrumiya Sahikh (died) Thr LRs Rukhiyabegum And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7233 OF 2021

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.3932 OF 2017

Pradeep Dadarao Patil

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Through The Collector, Latur and

Others

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Amit S. Deshpande, Shri Amol

Vasmatkar and Shri Swapnil Joshi.

...

951 FIRST APPEAL NO.5027 OF 2017

The Regional Officer, MIDC Latur

VERSUS

Santram Babu @ Malu Kamble And Other

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4060 OF 2018

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.5027 OF 2017

Kiran Santram Kamble

VERSUS

Santram Babu @ Malu Kamble And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7234 OF 2021

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.5027 OF 2017

Gautami @ Asmita Amol Kamble

VERSUS ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:24 :::

*63* MIDC LATUR

The Maharashtra State Industrial Dev. Co., Latur Thr Regional

Officer, Div. Latur And Others

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9881 OF 2019

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.5027 OF 2017

Santaram Babu @ Malu Kamble

VERSUS

M.s.i.d.c., Thr Its Regional Officer, Latur And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7235 OF 2021

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.5027 OF 2017

Gautami @ Asmita Amol Kamble

VERSUS

The Maharashtra State Industrial Dev. Co., Latur Thr Regional

Officer, Div. Latur And Others

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Kulkarni Girish N.

( Mardikar ) ...

952 FIRST APPEAL NO.5030 OF 2017

The Regional Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development

Corporation At Latur

VERSUS

Devidas Nivarutti Kanje And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale

...

953 FIRST APPEAL NO.1 OF 2018

The Regional Officer, MIDC, Latur

VERSUS

Dnyanoba Narsappa Panale And Ors

::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:24 :::

*64* MIDC LATUR

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13514 OF 2019

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1 OF 2018

Dnyanoba Narsappa Panale And Anr

VERSUS

The MIDC, Thr Regional Officer, MIDC., Latur And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2119 OF 2020

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1 OF 2018

Vatsala Subhash Sabde

VERSUS

The Regional Officer, MIDC, Latur And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9641 OF 2018

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1 OF 2018

Vatsala Subhash Sabde @ Vatsala Dnyanoba Panae

VERSUS

The Regional Officer, MIDC, Latur And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2578 OF 2021

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1 OF 2018

Yuvraj S/o Dnyanoba Panale (since Deceased), Thr Lrs. Rupali

W/o Yuvraj Panale And Others

VERSUS

The Regional Officer, MIDC, Latur And Others

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14003 OF 2021

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1 OF 2018 ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:24 :::

*65* MIDC LATUR

Vatsalabai Subhash Sabade and another

VERSUS

The Regional Officer, MIDC Latur and others.

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale

Advocate for the Applicants in CA/2119/2020 and 9641/2018

Shri G.R.Syed

...

954 FIRST APPEAL NO.1174 OF 2021

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Its

Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Shrirang Hariram Shelke And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1374 OF 2016

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1174 OF 2021

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Its

Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Shrirang Hariram Shelke And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2653 OF 2021

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1174 OF 2021

Mangesh Baliram Shelke And Another

VERSUS

Maharashtra State Industrial Dev. Co., Latur Thr Regional

Manager And Others

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri A.N. Irpatgire, Shri Girish

Kulkarni, Shri S. S. Manale and Shri S.C. Swami

... ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:24 :::

*66* MIDC LATUR

955 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.15691 OF 2016

IN

FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.35259 OF 2016

Chief Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation

Latur And Ors

VERSUS

Dastagir Turab Saheb Sayyed

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.15692 OF 2016

IN

FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.35259 OF 2016

Chief Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation

Latur And Ors

VERSUS

Dastagir Turab Saheb Sayyed

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri A.N.Irpatgire

...

956 FIRST APPEAL NO.2883 OF 2008

Vithal Balu Chame

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.4114 OF 2008

M I D C Latur.

VERSUS

Vitthal Balu Chame And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2475 OF 2015

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2883 OF 2008 ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:24 :::

*67* MIDC LATUR

Vithal Balu Chame

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale

...

957 FIRST APPEAL NO.3005 OF 2008

Vijaykumar Mukundrao Kale And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.3136 OF 2008

Vishwanath Irappa Kaile

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2356 OF 2009

M I D C, Latur.

VERSUS

Vishwanath Irappa Kale And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13391 OF 2017

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.3005 OF 2008

Vijaykumar Mukundrao Kale And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3873 OF 2015

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2356 OF 2009 ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:24 :::

*68* MIDC LATUR

Vishwanath Irappa Kale

VERSUS

M I D C, Latur. And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2215 OF 2010

M I D C, Latur.

VERSUS

Vijaykumar Mukundrao Kale And Ors

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri K.D. Bade Patil

...

958 FIRST APPEAL NO.136 OF 2009

M I D C Through Regional Officer MIDC Latur

VERSUS

Babu Santosh Walse LRs Gunda Babu Walse And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11614 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.143 OF 2009

Ram Ambadas Kaile And Ors

VERSUS

M I D C Latur

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.143 OF 2009

M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Ram Ambadas Kaile And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.139 OF 2009

M I D C Through Regional Officer MIDC Latur

VERSUS ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:24 :::

*69* MIDC LATUR

Dhondiram Bhaguram Kaile And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.141 OF 2009

M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Bhanudas Mahadu Kaile And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.138 OF 2009

M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Baliram Vitthalrao Kaile And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.137 OF 2009

M I D C Through Regional Officer MIDC Latur

VERSUS

Ashok Harishchandra Kaile And Ors

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale

...

959 FIRST APPEAL NO.140 OF 2009

M I D C Latur.

VERSUS

Harigir Nagendra Giri Thr LRs Gundugir And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9294 OF 2021

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.140 OF 2009

Amol Gundgir Giri And Others

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Latur And Others ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:24 :::

*70* MIDC LATUR

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9295 OF 2021

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.140 OF 2009

Gundugir Harigir Giri (died) Thr LRs Surekha And Anr

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Collector, Latur And ors

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale

...

960 FIRST APPEAL NO.1844 OF 2009

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Hariba Vithal Padile And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1838 OF 2009

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Raghu Balaji Maske And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1837 OF 2009

MIDC thru Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Mariba Limba Maske And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1839 OF 2009

MIDC thru Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Ambadas Balu Maske And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1841 OF 2009 ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:24 :::

*71* MIDC LATUR

MIDC Thru Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Mohan Madhav Maske And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1843 OF 2009

MIDC thru Regional Managar At Latur

VERSUS

Nagnath Rama Malewad LRs Meera Nagnath Malewad And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1836 OF 2009

MIDC Thru Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Subhash Bankat Maske And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1840 OF 2009

MIDC Thru Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Dattatraya Khaderao Khandapurkar And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1842 OF 2009

MIDC Thru Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Bhanudas Pandurang Sude And Ors

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri A.N.Irpatgire

...

961 FIRST APPEAL NO.2348 OF 2009

M I D C Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Milind Khanderao Aurandkar And Ors ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:24 :::

*72* MIDC LATUR

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2246 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2349 OF 2009

Laxman Narsing Boke Minor U/g Nat Padminbai Narsing Boke

And Anr

VERSUS

Thr Maharashtra Indutrial Dev Corpn Through Regional Officer

Divisional At Latur And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.18428 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2350 OF 2009

Ramchandra Sopan Kaile And Anr

VERSUS

The Divisional Manager/regional Officer MIDC And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2350 OF 2009

M I D C Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Ramchandra Sopan Kaile And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.18429 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2351 OF 2009

Baburao Eknath Kale LRs Laxman Baburao Kaile

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1799 OF 2014

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2350 OF 2009 ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:24 :::

*73* MIDC LATUR

Ramchandra Sopan Kaile

VERSUS

M I D C Through Regional Officer Latur

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2349 OF 2009

M I D C Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Kisan Mahadu Boke And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14006 OF 2021

IN

CROSS OBJECTION (STAMP) NO.38034 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2349 OF 2009

Kisan Mahadu Boke (died), through LRs Narsing and others

VERSUS

MIDC, Latur and others.

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2351 OF 2009

M I D C Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Baburao Eknath Kale LRs Laxman Baburao Kaile And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.18426 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2352 OF 2009

Balu Chima Kaile And Ors

VERSUS

The Divisional Regional Officer M I D C Latur

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2352 OF 2009 ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:24 :::

*74* MIDC LATUR

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Balu Chima Kaile And Ors

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale

...

962 FIRST APPEAL NO.2568 OF 2009

MIDC Through Its Regional Manager Latur

VERSUS

Ashadulla Abdul Raheman Shaikh (died) Through LRs Andors

WITH

CROSS OBJECTION (STAMP) NO.20023 OF 20

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.3108 OF 2009

Pandhari Vithal Chame Andnr

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.3108 OF 2009

MIDC Through Its Regional Manager Latur

VERSUS

Pandhari Vithal Chame And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5119 OF 2016

IN

CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.23143 OF 2015

Wajidmiya Abdulraheman Shaikh And Others

VERSUS

MIDC Through Its Regional Manager Latur And Another

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5116 OF 2016 ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:24 :::

*75* MIDC LATUR

IN

CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.29363 OF 2015

Ashadulla Abdul Rahman Shaikh Died Through LRs Khairunbee

And Ors

VERSUS

MIDC Through Regional Manager Latur And Others

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6285 OF 2009

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1967 OF 2009

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through

Regional/manager At Latur

VERSUS

Kashinath Basappa Janapure And Anr.

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1967 OF 2009

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through

Regional/manager At Latur

VERSUS

Kashinath Basappa Janapure And Anr.

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Urgunde Suhas P., Shri Vijay

B. Patil, Shri Deshmukh Rajeev B. and Shri V.D. Sapkal, Senior

Advocate h/f Shri Shri Gundre Suraj V.

...

963 FIRST APPEAL NO.1302 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Uddhav Khanderao Kale And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1311 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Manager ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:24 :::

*76* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

Shivaji Bhairu Tekale And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12332 OF 2011

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1304 OF 2010

Bhagwat Devidas Panchal

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12330 OF 2011

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1308 OF 2010

Bharat Vitthal Adsule

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12324 OF 2011

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1302 OF 2010

Uddhav Khanderao Kale

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5171 OF 2012

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1305 OF 2010

Sachin Umakant Patil

VERSUS

MIDC Through Regional Manager And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1305 OF 2010 ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:24 :::

*77* MIDC LATUR

MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Sachin Umakant Patil And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1304 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Bhagwat Devidas Panchal And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1308 OF 2010

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through

Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Bharat Vitthal Adsule And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1306 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Manager

VERSUS

Kashinath Kondiba Kadam And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12329 OF 2011

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1306 OF 2010

Kashinath Kondiba Kadam

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Kale Ajeet B.

...

964 FIRST APPEAL NO.2123 OF 2010

::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:24 :::

*78* MIDC LATUR

MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Baburao Nivrutti Chame And Anr

WITH

CROSS OBJECTION (STAMP) NO.22056 OF 20

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2127 OF 2010

Sopan Madhav Ghar

VERSUS

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer Latur And Another

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8726 OF 2015

IN

CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.22054 OF 2015

Baburao Nivrutti Chame

VERSUS

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer Latur And Another

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2125 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Gopinath Eknath Sude And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2124 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Pralhad Vithoba Chame And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2126 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:24 :::

*79* MIDC LATUR

Bhagwan Madhavrao Ghar Died Th LRs Gayabai Bhagwan Ghar

And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2127 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Sopan Madhav Ghar And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8714 OF 2015

IN

CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.22066 OF 2015

Gopinath Ekanath Sude

VERSUS

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer Latur And Another

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8724 OF 2015

IN

CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.22078 OF 2015

Pralhad Vithoba Chame

VERSUS

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer Latur And Another

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8725 OF 2015

IN

CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.22074 OF 2015

Vishvanath Madhau Boke Died Thr LRs Baba Vishvanath Boke

And Ors

VERSUS

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer Latur And Another

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2128 OF 2010 ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:24 :::

*80* MIDC LATUR

MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Vishvanath Madhau Boke Died Th LRs Baba Vishvanath Boke

And O Rs

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2129 OF 2010

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Balbhim Nivarti Tele And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2131 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Maroti Apparao Tele (deceased) Th LRs Kalawati Marutitele

And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8715 OF 2015

IN

CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.22060 OF 2015

Shrirang Madhav Ghar

VERSUS

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer Latur And Another

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2130 OF 2010

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Shrirang Madhav Ghar And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale

... ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:24 :::

*81* MIDC LATUR

965 FIRST APPEAL NO.2339 OF 2010

MIDC Through Divisional Officer Division Latur

VERSUS

Barkatunnisa Ismail Patel And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9373 OF 2018

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1482 OF 2010

Barkatnisa Ismail Patel(died) LRs Sadik Ismail Patel

VERSUS

Maharashtra Industrial Dev. Corp. MIDC Latur Thr Regional

Manager, MIDC Latur

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1482 OF 2010

Barkatnisa Ismail Patel(died) LRs Mohd. Sadik Ismail Patel

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri P.R.Katneshwarkar and Shri

Fayaz K. Patel

...

966 FIRST APPEAL NO.2462 OF 2010

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Premalbai Bharat Todkari And Anr

WITH

CROSS OBJECTION (STAMP) NO.35607 OF 20

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2462 OF 2010

Premalbai Bharat Todkari D Anr

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:24 :::

*82* MIDC LATUR

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13899 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2462 OF 2010

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Premalbai Bharat Todkari And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Satish S. Manale

...

967 FIRST APPEAL NO.2527 OF 2010

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Tulshiram Eknath Irle And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13901 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2527 OF 2010

MIDC Through Its Regional Officer

VERSUS

Tulshiram Eknath Irle And Ors

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Satish S. Manale

...

968 FIRST APPEAL NO.3566 OF 2011

MIDC Through Its Divisional Officer Divisional Office Latur

VERSUS

Prabhu Deorao Bansode Died Th LRs Devabai Prabhu Bansode

And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.15306 OF 2010

IN ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:24 :::

*83* MIDC LATUR

FIRST APPEAL NO.3566 OF 2011

MIDC Through Its Divisional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Prabhu Deorao Bansode Died Th LRs Devabai Prabhu Bansode

And Ors

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale and Shri Patil N.P.

Jamalpurkar

...

969 FIRST APPEAL NO.227 OF 2016

MIDC Thr Regional Officer, Latur

VERSUS

Digambar Keshavrao Kulkarni Died Thr LRs Kamal Died

Ramesh And Others

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14839 OF 2018

IN

CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.26455 OF 2017

Digambar Keshavrao Kulkarni (died) Thr LRs Kamal (died)

Ramesh And Others

VERSUS

Regional Officer, MIDC, Latur And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14840 OF 2018

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.227 OF 2016

Digambar Keshavrao Kulkarni Died Thr LRs Kamal Died

Ramesh And Others

VERSUS

The Regional Officer, Latur And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7236 OF 2021

IN ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:24 :::

*84* MIDC LATUR

FIRST APPEAL NO.227 OF 2016

Digambar Keshavrao Kulkarni (died) Thr LRs Kamal (died) Thr

Lrs. Ramesh And Others

VERSUS

Regional Officer, MIDC , Latur And Another

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Sachin S. Deshmukh

...

970 FIRST APPEAL NO.1305 OF 2016

Regional Manager, MIDC Latur Division, Latur

VERSUS

Venkatrao Vithal Valse And Others

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate

h/f Shri Gundre Suraj V.

...

971 FIRST APPEAL NO.1616 OF 2016

MIDC Thr Divisional Office, Division Office, Latur

VERSUS

Tukaram Balu Chame And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9093 OF 2021

IN

CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.10029 OF 2016

Tukaram Balu Chame (died) Thr Lrs. Vaijnath Tukaram Chame

And Others

VERSUS

MIDC Thr Divisional Office, Division Office, Latur And Anr

WITH

CROSS-OBJECTION NO.10029 OF 20

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1616 OF 2016

::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:24 :::

*85* MIDC LATUR

Tukaram Balu Chame Thr His Attorney Holder Vaijinath

Tukaram Chame

VERSUS

MIDC Thr Divisional Offic Division Office, Latur And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Satish S. Manale, Shri Milind

Patil and Shri Kulkarni Girish N. (Mardikar)

...

972 FIRST APPEAL NO.1641 OF 2016

Gopinath S/o Rama Sarole

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale

...

973 FIRST APPEAL NO.2216 OF 2016

MIDC Thr Divisional Office, Division Office, Latur

VERSUS

Satyanarayan Pannalalji Ladda And Anr

WITH

CROSS OBJECTION (STAMP) NO.10030 OF 20

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2216 OF 2016

Satyanarayan Pannalalji Ladda

VERSUS

MIDC Thr Divisional Office Division Office, Latur And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Kulkrni Girish N. (Mardikar)

...

974 FIRST APPEAL NO.2268 OF 2016

MIDC Thr Its Regional Manager, Latur

VERSUS

Shetiba Gurappa Chogule And Anr ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:24 :::

*86* MIDC LATUR

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.293 OF 2020

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2268 OF 2016

Shetiba Gurappa Chogule

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale

...

975 FIRST APPEAL NO.3820 OF 2016

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Its

Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Namdeo Vithoba Chame And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri G.K. Sontakke and Smt.P.G.

Sontakke

...

976 FIRST APPEAL NO.502 OF 2017

Regional Officer, MIDC Latur

VERSUS

Nagorao Vitthalrao Salunke And Others

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri A.N.Irpatgire

...

977 FIRST APPEAL NO.6 OF 2009

M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Deelip Tukaram Dhotre And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.257 OF 2009 ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:24 :::

*87* MIDC LATUR

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.6 OF 2009

M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Deelip Tukaram Dhotre And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2838 OF 2017

IN

CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.23472 OF 2016

Deelip Tukaram Dhotre And Anr

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale

...

978 FIRST APPEAL NO.90 OF 2009

IN

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.350 OF 2014

M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Achut Baburao Pandhare And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2373 OF 2008

Habib Ladlesaheb Sayyad And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2374 OF 2008

Nivratti Tatya Sarwade

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:24 :::

*88* MIDC LATUR

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.92 OF 2009

M I D C Latur.

VERSUS

Fattu Mohammad Sayyed And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.94 OF 2009

M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Habib Ladsaheb Sayyad And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7968 OF 2011

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.93 OF 2009

Nivrutti Tatya Sarwade

VERSUS

M I D C Latur And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7963 OF 2011

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.92 OF 2009

Fattu Mohammad Sayyed And Ors

VERSUS

M I D C Latur.

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1895 OF 2012

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.90 OF 2009

Achut Baburao Pandhare And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:24 :::

*89* MIDC LATUR

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2127 OF 2015

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.92 OF 2009

Fattu Mohammad Sayyed And Another

VERSUS

MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur And Another

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.93 OF 2009

M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Nivrutti Tatya Sarwade And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2372 OF 2008

Fattu Mohammad Sayyad And Anr

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2375 OF 2008

Achut Baburao Pandhare And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9092 OF 2021

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2375 OF 2008

Achut Baburao Phandare And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Through Collector, Latur Andanother

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale, Shri P.R.

Katneshwarkar and Shri Fayaz K. Patel ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:24 :::

*90* MIDC LATUR

...

979 FIRST APPEAL NO.91 OF 2009

M I D C Latur

VERSUS

Ladlesab Abdulsab Sayyad And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10753 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.91 OF 2009

Ladlesab Abdulsab Sayyad And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Through Collector Latur Andanr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale, Shri Abdul Aziz,

Shri P.R.Katneshwarkar and Shri V.D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate

h/f Shri S.V.Gundre

...

980 FIRST APPEAL NO.2723 OF 2009

Maharashtra Industries Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Md Chandkhan Babukhan And Ors

...

981 FIRST APPEAL NO.1481 OF 2010

Yejaj Khayum Patel And Anr

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9372 OF 2018

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1481 OF 2010 ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:25 :::

*91* MIDC LATUR

Yejaj Khayum Patel And Anr

VERSUS

Maharashtra Industrial Dev. Corp. MIDC Latur Thr Reginonal

Manager, MIDC Latur

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2338 OF 2010

Mah State Industrial Development Corpn Through Divnl Officer

Divisional Office Latur

VERSUS

Vejai Khayum Patel And Ors

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri P.R.Katneshwarkar and Shri

Fayaz K. Patel

...

982 FIRST APPEAL NO.1718 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Shivaji Sadhu Jadhav And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7213 OF 2019

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1729 OF 2010

Baliram Sheshrao Pandhare Died Thr LRs Satish Baliram

pandhare

VERSUS

The MIDC Through Regional Manager, Latur And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1716 OF 2010

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through

Regional Officer, Divisional Atlatur

VERSUS

Maheboob Vazir Shaikh And Anr. ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:25 :::

*92* MIDC LATUR

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1735 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Officer Division Latur

VERSUS

Ankush Shivaji Jadhav And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1734 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Officer

VERSUS

Yakub Suleman Sayyed And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1731 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Officer Division Latur

VERSUS

Shivaji Mahadeo Sarwade And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1733 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Pandhari Irappa Lotkar And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1736 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Dagdu Mahadeo Sarwade And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1720 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Maimuddin Ladlesab Sayyed And Anr ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:25 :::

*93* MIDC LATUR

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1726 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Govind Pandurang Jadhav And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1721 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Officer Division Latur

VERSUS

Lahu Shivaji Jadhav And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1729 OF 2010

MIDC through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Baliram Sheshrao Pandhare And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1728 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Rangnath Mahadeo Sarwade And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1722 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Bhagwan Shivaji Gawali And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1737 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Uttam Pandurang Jadhav And Anr ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:25 :::

*94* MIDC LATUR

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1724 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Rahmunissa Begam Abdul Wajid And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1717 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Officer Division Latur

VERSUS

Shrirang Santaram Khaire And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1725 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Officer Division Latur

VERSUS

Gopinath Irappa Lotkar And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7629 OF 2011

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1734 OF 2010

Shakenabee Rasulsaheb Sayyad And Anr

VERSUS

MIDC, Thr. Regional Officer, Latur And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13606 OF 2018

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1733 OF 2010

Pandhari Irappa Lotkar

VERSUS

The Regional Manager, MIDC Latur And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Khandagale Kalidas D, Shri ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:25 :::

*95* MIDC LATUR

Vijay B. Patil, S.C. Swami and Shri Gundre Suraj V.

...

983 FIRST APPEAL NO.1730 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Pushpabai Bapusaheb Pandhare And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Khandagale Kalidas D. and

Shri S.C. Swami

...

984 FIRST APPEAL NO.2122 OF 2010

MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Babu Nama Maske And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale, Shri More P. P.

and Shri Sandip Swami

...

985 FIRST APPEAL NO.2267 OF 2016

MIDC Through its Regional Manager, Latur

VERSUS

Ramling Nama Maske And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6405 OF 2016

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.3979 OF 2017

MIDC through Its Regional Manager, Latur

VERSUS

Nagnath Nama Maske And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2006 OF 2021

IN ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:25 :::

*96* MIDC LATUR

CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.12690 OF 2019

Nagnath Nama Maske

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.292 OF 2020

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2267 OF 2016

Ramling Nama Maske

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.291 OF 2020

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.3979 OF 2017

Nagnath Nama Maske

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.3979 OF 2017

MIDC Thr Its Regional Manager, Latur

VERSUS

Nagnath Nama Maske And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale

...

986 FIRST APPEAL NO.2508 OF 2016

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Thr Its

Regional Manager, Latur

VERSUS

Chandar Maruti Pitale And Ors

::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:25 :::

*97* MIDC LATUR

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2509 OF 2016

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Thr Its

Regional Manager, Latur

VERSUS

Narhar Kishanrao Kulkarni And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6605 OF 2017

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2516 OF 2016

Vitthal Mahada Walse Died Thr LRs Rukminibai Vitthal Walse

And Anr

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4645 OF 2017

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2511 OF 2016

Vithoba Ramji Pitale Died Thr His LRs Narayan Vithoba Pitale

And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Collector, Latur And anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6606 OF 2017

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2513 OF 2016

Bhaguram Rama Chame

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6603 OF 2017

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2518 OF 2016 ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:25 :::

*98* MIDC LATUR

Jankibai Gopinath Gautam Died Thr His LRs Gopinath Jaiwant

Gautam And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2511 OF 2016

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Thr Its

Regional Manager, Latur

VERSUS

Vithoba Ramji Pitale Died Thr His LRs Narayan Vithoba Pitale

And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6607 OF 2017

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2512 OF 2016

Kondiba Nama Gautam Died Thr His LRs Laxmibai

Kondibagautam And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2513 OF 2016

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Thr Its

Regional Manager, Latur

VERSUS

Bhaguram Rama Chame And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2515 OF 2016

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Thr Its

Regional Manager, Latur

VERSUS

Bhima Hanmant Hadgile Died Thr His LRs Venkat Bhima ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:25 :::

*99* MIDC LATUR

Hadgile And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2516 OF 2016

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Thr Its

Regional Manager, Latur

VERSUS

Vitthal Mahada Walse Died Thr LRs Rukminibai Vitthal Walse

And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4638 OF 2017

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2515 OF 2016

Bhima Hanmant Hadgile Died Thr His LRs Venkat Bhima

Hadgile And Anr

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Collector, Latur And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4648 OF 2017

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2516 OF 2016

Vitthal Mahada Walse Died Thr LRs Rukminibai Vitthal Walse

And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Collector, Latur And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4649 OF 2017

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2512 OF 2016

Kondiba Nama Gautam Died Thr His LRs Laxmibai

Kondibagautam And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Collector, Latur And Anr ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:25 :::

*100* MIDC LATUR

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4650 OF 2017

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2508 OF 2016

Chandar Maruti Pitale

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Collector, Latur And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4652 OF 2017

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2513 OF 2016

Bhaguram Rama Chame

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Collector, Latur And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4646 OF 2017

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2509 OF 2016

Narhar Kishanrao Kulkarni

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Collector, Latur And anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4647 OF 2017

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2518 OF 2016

Jankabai Gopinath Gautam Died Thr His LRs Gopinath Jaiwant

Gautam And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Thr The Collector, Latur And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6601 OF 2017

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2511 OF 2016 ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:25 :::

*101* MIDC LATUR

Vithoba Ramji Pitale Died Thr His LRs Narayan Vithobapitale

And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6602 OF 2017

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2509 OF 2016

Narhar Kishanrao Kulkarni

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2518 OF 2016

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Thr Its

Regional Manager, Latur

VERSUS

Jankabai Gopinath Gautam Died Thr His LRs Gopinath Jaiwant

Gautam And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.281 OF 2017

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2515 OF 2016

Venkat Bhima Hadgile And Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13656 OF 2017

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2515 OF 2016

Bhima Hanmant Hadgile Died Thr His LRs Venkat Bhima

Hadgile And Ors

VERSUS ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:25 :::

*102* MIDC LATUR

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2512 OF 2016

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Thr Its

Regional Manager, Latur

VERSUS

Kondiba Nama Gautam Died Thr His LRs Laxmibai Kondiba

Gautam And Ors

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Amit S. Deshpande, Shri Amol

Vasmatkar and Shri Swapnil Joshi.

...

987 FIRST APPEAL NO.2680 OF 2016

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Thr

Divisional Officer, Latur

VERSUS

Dashrath Nama Maske Died Thr His LRs Chandrabhagabai and

Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8325 OF 2016

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2680 OF 2016

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Thr

Divisional Officer, Latur

VERSUS

Dashrath Nama Maske Died Thr His LRs Chandrabhagabai and

Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2174 OF 2019

IN

CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.28818 OF 2018

Navnath Dashrath Maske

VERSUS ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:25 :::

*103* MIDC LATUR

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Thr

Divisional Officer, Latur And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3523 OF 2019

IN

CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.6580 OF 2019

Chandrabhagabai Dashrath Maske And Ors

VERSUS

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Thr

Divisional Officer, Latur And Ors

...

Advocate for the Claimants: : Shri Satish S. Manale, Shri Ghute

Suhas B., Shri Sarawade Patil Dattatray D. and Shri G.J.Kare

...

988 FIRST APPEAL NO.3841 OF 2017

The Regional Officer, Maharashtra Industrial Development

Corporation Ltd. Latur And Anr

VERSUS

Babu Eknath Lad

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri G.K. Sontakke and Smt.P.G.

Sontakke

...

989 FIRST APPEAL NO.3568 OF 2008

MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Gurunath Sangramappa Birajdar And Ors

WITH

CROSS OBJECTION (STAMP) NO.22849 OF 20

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.3568 OF 2008

Gurunath Sangramappa Biraar And Anr

VERSUS ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:25 :::

*104* MIDC LATUR

The State Of Maharashtra and Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9566 OF 2008

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.3568 OF 2008

MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Gurunath Sangramappa Birajdar And Ors

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri R.K.Ashtekar

...

990 FIRST APPEAL NO.2768 OF 2009

Sanjay Rajabhau Udgirkar LRs Suman Rajabhau Udgirkar And

Ors

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar i/by Shri

Kulkarni Girish N. (Mardikar)

...

991 FIRST APPEAL NO.656 OF 2010

MIDC, Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Kamladevi Gopikishan Agralwal And Ors

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale and Smt.Dube

Anjali (Bajpai)

...

992 FIRST APPEAL NO.2314 OF 2010

MIDC Through Divisional /regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Siddappa Baswant Malge And Ors

... ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:25 :::

*105* MIDC LATUR

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri P.R.Katneshwarkar

...

993 FIRST APPEAL NO.218 OF 2011

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through

Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Nivratti Nagnath Barure And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.230 OF 2011

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through

Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Kashibai Kisan Barure And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.220 OF 2011

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through

Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Radhabai Vishnu Pate And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.221 OF 2011

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through

Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Ramchandra Nivratti Barure And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.222 OF 2011

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through

Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Saraswatibai Bharat Barure And Anr ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:25 :::

*106* MIDC LATUR

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.223 OF 2011

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through

Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Bharat Tulshiram Barure And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.224 OF 2011

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through

Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Sanjay Niwarti Barure And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.225 OF 2011

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through

Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Harishchandra Niwarti Barure And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.226 OF 2011

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through

Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Ganpati Nagnath Barure And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.227 OF 2011

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through

Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Rashid Nabbisab Shaikh ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:25 :::

*107* MIDC LATUR

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.228 OF 2011

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through

Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Uddhav Nagnath Baure And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.229 OF 2011

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through

Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Kishan Rama Barure LRs Nivrutti Nagnath Barure And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri G.K. Sontakke and Smt.P.G.

Sontakke

...

994 FIRST APPEAL NO.2673 OF 2011

MIDC Through Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Gurappa Venkat Dandgule And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1488 OF 2019

IN

CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.26111 OF 2017

Gurappa Venkat Dandgule

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17375 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2673 OF 2011

MIDC Through Regional Manager At Latur ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:25 :::

*108* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

Gurappa Venkat Dandgule And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Amit S. Deshpande, Shri Amol

Vasmatkar and Shri Swapnil Joshi.

...

995 FIRST APPEAL NO.2803 OF 2013

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Krishnabai Ramvilas Agrawal And Another

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Girish Kulkarni N. (Mardikar)

...

996 FIRST APPEAL NO.3089 OF 2015

Venkat Mallikarjun Waghmare

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1525 OF 2017

Regional Officer Maharashtra Industrial Development

Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Venkat Mallikarjun Waghmare And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13845 OF 2019

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1525 OF 2017

Venkat Mallikarjun Waghmare

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri G.K. Sontakke and Smt.P.G.

Sontakke ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:25 :::

*109* MIDC LATUR

...

997 FIRST APPEAL NO.3097 OF 2015

Mallikarjun Baswant Waghmare And Others

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13846 OF 2019

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1523 OF 2017

Mallikarjun Baswant Waghmare And Others

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1523 OF 2017

Regional Officer, MIDC Latur

VERSUS

Mallikarjun Baswant Waghmare And Others

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri G.K. Sontakke and Smt.P.G.

Sontakke

...

998 FIRST APPEAL NO.3098 OF 2015

Bankat Mallikarjun Waghmare And Another

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13847 OF 2019

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1524 OF 2017

Bankat Mallikarjun Waghmare And Anr

VERSUS ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:25 :::

*110* MIDC LATUR

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1524 OF 2017

Regional Officer Maharashtra Industrial Development

Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Bankat Mallikarjun Waghmare And Ors

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri G.K. Sontakke and Smt.P.G.

Sontakke

...

999 FIRST APPEAL NO.2805 OF 2016

Achalkumar Shivdas Gangle Died Thr Lr Shakuntalabai And

Others

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2806 OF 2016

Chunnumiya Isulal Shaikh

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2814 OF 2016

Ayub Khan Nasib Khan Pathan

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2810 OF 2016

Vasantrao Ambadasrao Jadhav

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:25 :::

*111* MIDC LATUR

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2808 OF 2016

Parmilabai Vijaykumar Jadhav (Kinikar)

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.4501 OF 2016

Mohamedsab Dadasab Kabade Died Thr.lrs. Chabanbee

Mohamedsab Kabade And Others

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.4362 OF 2016

Khajoddin Chandsab Shaikh

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Others

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2813 OF 2016

Bashir Isulal Shaik Died Thr His LRs Jahidabee And Anr

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2807 OF 2016

Isulal Mahtab Shaikh Died Thr His LRs Chunnumiya And Others

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2811 OF 2016

Sudhakar Prabhu Swami ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:25 :::

*112* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2812 OF 2016

Lalita Bankatrao Bhise

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Amit S. Deshpande, Shri Amol

Vasmatkar and Shri Swapnil Joshi.

Advocate for the Claimants: in FA 2808/2016 Shri A.S. Lomte

...

1000 FIRST APPEAL NO.2675 OF 2011

MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Nandkishor Indrajeet Agrawal And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17371 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2679 OF 2011

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Its

Regional Manager Latur

VERSUS

Pandurng Hanmant Chame And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2677 OF 2011

MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Venkat Bhima Hadgile And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2678 OF 2011 ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:25 :::

*113* MIDC LATUR

MIDC Through Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Santaram Nivarti Chame And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2679 OF 2011

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through Its

Regional Manager Latur

VERSUS

Pandurng Hanmant Chame And Ors

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2680 OF 2011

MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Vithal Dhondiram Chame And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2681 OF 2011

MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Babu Moka Maske And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17367 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2676 OF 2011

MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Sambha Eknath Walse (died) LRs Sajabai Sambha Walse And

Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17369 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2675 OF 2011 ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:25 :::

*114* MIDC LATUR

MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Nandkishor Indrajeet Agrawal And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17373 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2680 OF 2011

MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Vithal Dhondiram Chame And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17377 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2677 OF 2011

MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Venkat Bhima Hadgile And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17379 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2681 OF 2011

MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Babu Moka Maske And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.17381 OF 2010

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2678 OF 2011

MIDC Through Regional Manager At Latur

VERSUS

Santaram Nivarti Chame And Anr

WITH ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:25 :::

*115* MIDC LATUR

FIRST APPEAL NO.2676 OF 2011

MIDC Through Its Regional Manager

VERSUS

Sambha Eknath Walse (died) LRs Sajabai Sambha Walse And

Ors

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Amit S. Deshpande, Shri Amol

Vasmatkar, Shri Deshmukh Rajiv B., Shri Swapnil Joshi

...

1001 FIRST APPEAL NO.306 OF 2018

Babu Suleman Sayyed Died through LRs Maidabee And Others

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.777 OF 2018

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.306 OF 2018

Shakerabi Rasoolsaheb Sayed And Anr

VERSUS

Babu Suleman Sayyed Died through LRs Maidabee And Others

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.310 OF 2018

Chandar Maruti Pitale And Anr

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1146 OF 2018

Narhar Kishanrao Kulkarni

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:25 :::

*116* MIDC LATUR

FIRST APPEAL NO.309 OF 2018

Kondiba Nama Gautam Died Thr LRs Lakshmibai And Others

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1145 OF 2018

Bhima Hanmant Hadgile Died Thr LRs Venkat And Others

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1147 OF 2018

Vithal Mahada Walse Died Thr LRs Rukmini And Anr

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.307 OF 2018

Bhau Venkoba Ghodke Died Thr LRs Chandrabhagabai And

Others

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.308 OF 2018

Jankibai Gopinath Gautam Died Thr LRs Gopinath And Others

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1144 OF 2018

Bhaguram Rama Chame

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:25 :::

*117* MIDC LATUR

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Amit S. Deshpande, Shri Amol

Vasmatkar and Shri Swapnil Joshi.

...

1002 FIRST APPEAL NO.888 OF 2013

Maharashtra State Industril Development Corporation,latur

VERSUS

Ghininath Nagnath Birle An Another

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.889 OF 2013

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Nagnath Tukaram Birle, LRs Zingabai And Others

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Gunale V.D.

...

1003 FIRST APPEAL NO.2097 OF 2013

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Gundabai Hanmantrao Javir Nd Another

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8858 OF 2021

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2102 OF 2013

Baburao Narayanrao Sabde (died) Thr Lrs. Kaushalyabai(died)

Suryakant Baburao Sabde And Another

VERSUS

Maharashtra Industrial Dev. Co. Thr The Regional Officer, Latur

And Another

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2102 OF 2013 ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:25 :::

*118* MIDC LATUR

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation,latur

VERSUS

Baburao Narayanrao Sabde And Another

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4391 OF 2013

IN

FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.8215 OF 2013

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Bhanudas Laxman Sude And Another

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4392 OF 2013

IN

FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.8215 OF 2013

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Bhanudas Laxman Sude And Another

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2098 OF 2013

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Sambhaji Tukaram Iyanale And Another

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2100 OF 2013

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Mangala Shrikant Malshe And Another

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2101 OF 2013

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:25 :::

*119* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

Nirmalabai Govindrao Andurkar And Another

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2099 OF 2013

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Shantadevi Jagdishprashad Bhansali And Ors

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D. Sapkal, Senior Advocate

and Shri G.N. Kulkarni

...

1004 FIRST APPEAL NO.2797 OF 2013

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Tukaram Sangappa Chame And another

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2800 OF 2019

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2797 OF 2013

Venkat Sangappa Chame

VERSUS

MIDC Latur Through Executive Engineer And Others

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2799 OF 2013

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Kishan Baburao Gope And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2793 OF 2013

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:25 :::

*120* MIDC LATUR

Zhakiyabi Mohamad Kashim And Another

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2800 OF 2013

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Bhagwat V Tandale (died) LRs Seema B Tandale And Another

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.15395 OF 2017

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2800 OF 2013

Bhagwat V Tandale (died) LRs Geet Bhagwat Tanadale

VERSUS

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation Thr Its

Div Officer, Div Latur And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14526 OF 2019

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2798 OF 2013

Baliram Gyna Kutwad And Anr

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8316 OF 2014

IN

CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.15381 OF 2014

Tukaram Sangappa Chame

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2796 OF 2013

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:25 :::

*121* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

Manohar Sopan Barure And Another

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2798 OF 2013

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation, Latur

VERSUS

Baliram Gyna Kutwad And Others

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2801 OF 2019

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2797 OF 2013

Venkat Sangappa Chame

VERSUS

MIDC Latur Thr Ex. Engineer, Latur Division, Latur and Ors

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri A.N.Irpatgire

Advocate for the Respondent in FA/2800/2013 Shri G.N.

Kulkarni

...

1005 FIRST APPEAL NO.2801 OF 2013

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Muktabai Sopan Shelke And Nother

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.2802 OF 2013

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation,latur

VERSUS

Machindra Santram Kutwad And Others

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4455 OF 2017

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.2802 OF 2013 ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:25 :::

*122* MIDC LATUR

The Regional Officer, MIDC Latur

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8341 OF 2014

IN

CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.15439 OF 2014

Machindra Santram Kutwad

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri A.N.Irpatgire

...

1006 FIRST APPEAL NO.3043 OF 2013

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation, Latur

VERSUS

Nagnath Rama Yerme And Anoher

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.3044 OF 2013

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation, Latur

VERSUS

Shivaji Vithalrao Narhare And Another

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.3049 OF 2013

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation, Latur

VERSUS

Ankush Nagnath Birle And Another

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.3051 OF 2013

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation, Latur ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:25 :::

*123* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

Ganpati Panda Alapure Died LRs Baburao And Others

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.8847 OF 2021

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.3043 OF 2013

Nagnath Rama Yerme (died) Thr LRs Kamalbai And Ors

VERSUS

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation, Latur

And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.3045 OF 2013

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation, Latur

VERSUS

Baburao Gyana Tigile And Another

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale and Shri Wagh

Mukulanand R.

...

1007 FIRST APPEAL NO.318 OF 2014

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation, Latur

VERSUS

Veerbhadra Sidappa Malage and Others

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3408 OF 2013

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.279 OF 2014

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Shobhabai Baliram Kamble And Another

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3406 OF 2013 ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:25 :::

*124* MIDC LATUR

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.283 OF 2014

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Ganpati Gayanba Narwad And Another

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3415 OF 2013

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.282 OF 2014

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Baburao Bapurao Iylane And Another

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.278 OF 2014

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Bhimrao Bapurao Iylane And Another

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3399 OF 2013

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.318 OF 2014

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation,latur

VERSUS

Veerbhadra Sidappa Malage And Others

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3411 OF 2013

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.278 OF 2014

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Bhimrao Bapurao Iylane And Another

::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:25 :::

*125* MIDC LATUR

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.279 OF 2014

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Shobhabai Baliram Kamble And Another

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.282 OF 2014

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Baburao Bapurao Iylane And Another

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.283 OF 2014

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Ganpati Gayanba Narwad And Another

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.324 OF 2014

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Laxuman Venka Sude, LRs Bhanudas And Others

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri G.N.Kulkarni

...

1008 FIRST APPEAL NO.1040 OF 2014

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Narayan Narsappa Panale, Lrs. Jijabai And Others

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1041 OF 2014

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:25 :::

*126* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

Pundlik Sangramappa Gobe And Another

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1042 OF 2014

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation, Latur

VERSUS

Vishnudas Mohanlal Tiwari And Another

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri A.N.Irpatgire

Advocate for the Respondents in FA 1041/2014 and 1042/2014 :

Shri G.N. Kulkarni

...

1009 FIRST APPEAL NO.1166 OF 2014

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation, Latur

VERSUS

Bharat Trimbak Malwadkar and Another

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3286 OF 2015

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1166 OF 2014

Vijaykumar Trimbakrao Malawadkar

VERSUS

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation, Latur

And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7181 OF 2020

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1168 OF 2014

Pratibha @ Pratima W/o Nagnath Mashalkar And Ors

VERSUS

MIDC , Thr Its Div. Officer, Latur And Anr

WITH ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*127* MIDC LATUR

FIRST APPEAL NO.1167 OF 2014

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation, Latur

VERSUS

Trimbak Sangramappa Kadge Died LRs Shakundalabai And

Others

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3287 OF 2015

IN

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.799 OF 2015

Vijaykumar Trimbakrao Malawadkar

VERSUS

Mah State Industrial Dev Corpn Thr Divnl Officer MIDC Latur

And And Ors

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7169 OF 2020

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1166 OF 2014

Bharat Trimbak Malwadkar

VERSUS

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation,latur And

Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1168 OF 2014

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation

VERSUS

Dr. Nagnath Kumarappa Mashalkar, LRs Pratibha And Others

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7184 OF 2020

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1167 OF 2014

Shakuntalabai Trimbakappa Kadge And Ors ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*128* MIDC LATUR

VERSUS

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation, Latur

And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Natu Sharad V. and Shri A.A.

Joshi

…

1010 FIRST APPEAL NO.641 OF 2015

MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur

VERSUS

Chandar Bapu Kotwad Died Trough LRs Jijabai Chandar

Kotwad And Others

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1802 OF 2014

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Harishchandra Vaijanath Chatekar And Others

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10109 OF 2016

IN

CROSS-OBJECTION STAMP NO.18242 OF 2015

Harishchandra Vaijnath Chatekar

VERSUS

The Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Thr

Regional Manager And Others

WITH

CROSS-OBJECTION NO.16817 OF 20

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.641 OF 2015

Chandar Bapu Kotwad Died Rough LRs Jijabai Chandar

Kotwad And Others

VERSUS

The Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Through ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*129* MIDC LATUR

Regional Manager And Others

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri A.N.Irpatgire

...

1011 FIRST APPEAL NO.1637 OF 2013

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation, Latur

VERSUS

Sanjay Balwantrao Pande And Another

WITH

CROSS-OBJECTION NO.32 OF 2021

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.1637 OF 2013

Sanjay Balwantrao Pande

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Another

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar h/f Shri

C.R.Deshpande

...

1 FIRST APPEAL NO.3813 OF 2008

Bharat Vithalrao Halwai And Anr

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.13302 OF 2018

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.4176 OF 2008

Bharat Vitthalrao Halwani (died) Through LRs Charushila And

Ors

VERSUS ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*130* MIDC LATUR

MIDC , Through Regional Officer, MIDC Latur And Anr

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2036 OF 2014

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.4176 OF 2008

Bharat Vithalrao Halwai Died Through LRs Charushila Bharat

Halwai And Another

VERSUS

MIDC Through Regional Officer Latur And Another

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.4176 OF 2008

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation Latur

VERSUS

Bharat Vithalrao Halwani And Ors

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale and Shri Panale

Sachin S.

Advocate for Respondent Nos.2AIII: Shri Vinod B. Jadhav

Advocate for Respondent Nos.2AIII, IV: Shri A.N. Sabnis

...

2 FIRST APPEAL NO.4028 OF 2008

M I D C Latur.

VERSUS

Rajendra Uttamrao Nade And Anr

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.4049 OF 2008

Rajendra Uttamrao Nade

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra And Anr

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D.Gunale

...

::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*131* MIDC LATUR

FIRST APPEAL NO.767 OF 2013

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.11030 OF 2021

Baburao Narayanrao Sabde

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra and another

...

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri V.D. Sapkal,

Senior Advocate h/f Shri S.V. Gundre

…

FIRST APPEAL NO.672 OF 2011

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.951 OF 2011

IN

FIRST APPEAL NO.672 OF 2011

WITH

FIRST APPEAL NO.1367 OF 2010

Baburao Govindrao Gaikwad and another

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra and others

…

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri Y.B. Gaikwad, Shri G.S. Patil

and Shri B.V. Thombre.

…

1 FIRST APPEAL NO.2972 OF 2013

Prabhu Dadarao Bansode (died), through LRs Devaibai and

others

VERSUS

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, Latur and

others

WITH

2 FIRST APPEAL NO.10 OF 2014

Laxman Malappa Chavan

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra and another

… ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*132* MIDC LATUR

Advocate for the Claimants: Shri N.P. Patil Jamalpurkar

…

…

Advocates for the MIDC in all matters:-

Shri Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, Advocate General a/w Shri M.M.

Agnihotri, Shri Akshay P. Shinde, Shri S.S.Dande, Ms.M.S.

Mhase, Shri Mayank Agnihotri, Ms.Ashwini Mate and Shri G.S.

Khaire

AGPs for the State of Maharashtra:-

Shri B.V. Virde (in Sr.No.901 to 930),

Shri S.R.Yadav (in Sr.No.931 to 970),

Shri S.G. Sangle (in Sr.No.971 to 1011, in FA No.2972/2013 and

FA 10/2014) and

Shri S.B. Yawalkar (in Sr.Nos.1, 2 and in FA Nos.767/2013,

672/2011 and 1367/2010)

...

CORAM RAVINDRA V. GHUGE

&

S.G. MEHARE, JJ.

Judgment reserved on:- 26

th

October, 2021

Judgment pronounced on:- 23

rd

December, 2021

JUDGMENT ( Per Court) :-

1. In all these First Appeals, most of which are

admitted, the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation,

Latur (MIDC) is the appellant. Several cross appeals have been

filed by the original claimants. On the request of all the litigating

parties, all these appeals are taken up together for final hearing. ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*133* MIDC LATUR

2. Being aggrieved by the impugned awards, the

appellant/ MIDC has approached this Court contending that the

Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) (District Collector)

had granted total compensation of Rs.11,61,30,586/- (Rupees

Eleven Crores Sixty One Lacs Thirty Thousand Five Hundred

Eighty Six). By the impugned awards, the Reference Courts have

granted a total enhancement of more than Rs.840 crores. Some

appeals are filed by the claimants seeking enhancement in

compensation.

3. The oral submissions in the combined hearing of all

these appeals, by consent, commenced on 26.08.2021 and

concluded on 26.10.2021. By the consent of the parties, these

appeals have been heard almost everyday, in the afternoon after

the urgent admissions board was over. We have recorded the

submissions of the learned Advocate General and the learned

Advocates on behalf of the appellant and the learned Advocates

on behalf of the respondents/ claimants, date-wise, in our notes

register. Both the sides advanced oral submissions on

propositions of law. They also tendered brief synoptical notes/

charts/ maps and details of lands in each appeal. The large colour

shaded/ colour code map tendered by the learned Advocate ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*134* MIDC LATUR

General is undisputed and hence, the same is marked as

Annexure “X-1” to this judgment. It shall be a part and parcel of

this judgment.

4. In this judgment, we have discussed the law

applicable to these cases at the beginning of this judgment so as

to make it convenient for us to draw our conclusions on the

impugned awards and arrive at the appropriate quantification of

the market rates of the lands acquired on the basis of the oral and

documentary evidence.

5. The learned Advocate General of the State of

Maharashtra Shri Ashutosh Kumbhakoni has opened the final

oral submissions on behalf of the appellant.

6. He has presented a large colour map with colour

codes (Annexure X-1) of the entire area from which the MIDC

has acquired various parcels of land from three villages, namely,

Harangul (Budruk), Chincholirao Wadi and Khandapur. The

Railway Station is situated at the south side of Harangul

(Budruk). He has then placed before us a second map showing

zigzag red lines which mark the boundaries of various portions

falling in the new additional Industrial Area for which the lands

are acquired. He explains that the zigzag red line marks of such ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*135* MIDC LATUR

boundaries are owing to the exclusion of the irrigated lands from

acquisition for setting up of the additional industrial area,

keeping in view that such irrigated lands would require a high

compensation and hence, the Government of Maharashtra took a

conscious stand of dropping such lands from acquisition. The

extent of the lands acquired from these three villages is 1073.61

Hectares, which is 2652.948 Acres.

7. Shri Kumbhakoni has relied on the scheme of law

under the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (for

short “the MID Act”). He has referred to the preamble, which

reads as under :-

“An Act to make special provision for

securing the orderly establishment in industrial

areas and industrial estates of industries in the

State of Maharashtra, and to assist generally in the

organization thereof, and for that purpose to

establish an Industrial Development Corporation,

and for purposes connected with the matters

aforesaid.

WHEREAS, it is expedient to make special

provision for securing the orderly establishment in

industrial areas and industrial estates of industries

in the State of Maharashtra, and to assist generally

in the organisation thereof, and for that purpose to

establish an Industrial Development Corporation,

and for purposes connected with the-matters

aforesaid; It is hereby enacted in the Twelfth Year

of the Republic of India as follows:-”

8. He refers to Section 1(3) of the MID Act, which ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*136* MIDC LATUR

reads thus:-

“Section 1(3) This Act, except

Chapter VI, shall come into force at once; Chapter

VI shall take effect in such area, from such date as

the State Government may, from time to time, by

notification in the Official Gazette, appoint in that

behalf.

Provided that, if in the opinion of the State

Government any area or any part thereof, where

Chapter VI has been brought into force, is not

required or is not likely to be required for the

purpose of development as an industrial area, the

State Government may, by like notification, direct

that Chapter VI shall cease to be in force in that

area or in any part thereof on such date as may be

specified in the notification, except as respects

things done or omitted to be done before such date:

Provided further that, no notification shall

be issued by the State Government under the first

proviso after the expiry of such period from the

date of bringing into force of Chapter VI as may be

prescribed; and different periods may be prescribed

for the area in which Chapter VI has been brought

into force before the commencement of the

Maharashtra Industrial Development (Amendment)

Act; 1974 and for the areas in which that Chapter

may be brought into force after such

commencement.”

9. He then submits that Chapter VI under the MID Act

pertains to it's applicability and for which, a separate notification

has to be issued under the said chapter. It deals with acquisition

and disposal of lands. Such notification was published in the

State Gazette on 07.05.1992 and Chapter VI was made

applicable from 08.05.1992. ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*137* MIDC LATUR

10. He has then referred to Section 4(1) of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894, which reads as under :-

“4. Publication of preliminary notification and

powers of officers thereupon.

(1)Whenever it appears to the appropriate

Government that land in any locality is needed

or is likely to be needed for any public purpose

or for a company, a notification to that effect

shall be published in the Official Gazette and

in two daily newspapers circulating in that

locality of which at least one shall be in the

regional language, and the Collector shall

cause public notice of the substance of such

notification to be given at convenient places in

the said locality the last of the dates of such

publication and the giving of such public

notice, being hereinafter referred to as the date

of the publication of the notification.”

11. He then submits that the notification declaring the

intention of acquiring the land for the Maharashtra Industrial

Development Corporation (for short “the MIDC”), was issued on

24.04.1992. It was published in the gazette on 07.05.1992. This

is the first golden date, which is extremely relevant. On

04.03.1993, the notice under Section 32(2) of the MID Act was

published. This is the second golden date and as per Chapter VI

of the MID Act, the period from 07.05.1992 till 04.03.1993, is

very crucial. Sale Deeds that may have been executed between

this period, both days inclusive, will have to be viewed with due ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*138* MIDC LATUR

circumspection and be scrutinized very carefully.

12. He has then referred to Sections 31, 32 and 33 of the

MID Act and Sections 6 and 16 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894. These provisions read as under :-

Sections 31, 32 and 33 of the MID Act:-

“Section 31 - Application

The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to such

areas from such dates as have been notified by the

State Government under sub-section (3) of section

1.

Section 32 - Compulsory acquisition

(1)If, at any time in the opinion of the State

Government, any land is required for the purpose

of development by the Corporation, or for any

other purpose in furtherance of the objects of this

Act, the State Government may acquire such land

by publishing in the Official Gazette a notice

specifying the particular purpose for which such

land is required, and stating therein that the State

Government has decided to acquire the land in

pursuance of this section.

(2)Before publishing a notice under sub-section (1),

the State Government shall by another notice call

upon the owner of the land and any other person

who in the opinion of the State Government may

be interested therein, to show cause, within such

time as may be specified in the notice, why the

land should not be acquired. The State

Government shall also cause public notice to be

given in the manner laid down in section 53 and in

the Official Gazette.

Provided that ..........

Explanation ..........

(3)After considering the cause, if any shown by the

owner of the land and by any other person

interested therein, and after giving such owner and

person an opportunity of being heard, the State

Government may pass such orders as it deems fit.

(4)When a notice under sub-section (1) is published ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*139* MIDC LATUR

in the Official Gazette, the land shall on and from

the date of such publication vest absolutely in the

State Government free from all encumbrances :

Provided that, if before actual possession of

such land is taken by or on behalf of the State

Government, it appears for the State Government

that the land is no more required for the purposes

of this Act, the State Government may, by like

notice, withdraw the land from acquisition and on

the publication of such notice in the Official

Gazette, the land shall revest with the retrospective

effect in the person in whom it was vesting

immediately before the publication of the notice

under sub-section (1), subject to such

encumbrances, if any, as may be subsisting at that

time. The owner and other persons interested shall

be entitled to compensation for the damage, if any,

suffered by them in consequence of the acquisition

proceedings as determined in accordance with the

provisions of section 33.

(5)Where any land is vested in the State Government

under sub-section (4), the State Government may,

by notice in writing, order any person who may be

in possession of the land to surrender or deliver

possession thereof to the State Government or any

person duly authorised by it in this behalf within

thirty days of the service of the notice.

(6)If any person refuses or fails to comply with an

order made under sub-section (5), the State

Government may take possession of the land, and

may for that purpose use such force as may be

necessary.

(7) Where the land has been acquired for the

Corporation or any local authority, the State

Government, shall, after it has taken possession

thereof, by notification published in the Official

Gazette, transfer the land to the Corporation or that

local authority, as the case may be, for the purpose

for which it was acquired, and the provisions of

section 43-1A shall apply to any land so

transferred.

33.Compensation.

(1)Where any land is acquired by the State ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*140* MIDC LATUR

Government under this Chapter, the State

Government shall pay for such acquisition

compensation the amount of which shall be

determined in accordance with the provisions of

this section.

(2)Where the amount of compensation has been

determined by agreement between the State

Government and the person to be compensated, it

shall be determined in accordance with such

agreement.

(3)Where no such agreement can be reached, the State

Government shall refer the case to the Collector

for determination of the amount of compensation

to be paid for such acquisition as also the person or

persons to whom such compensation shall be paid :

Provided that, no compensation exceeding

such amount as the State Government may by

general order specify, to be paid for such

acquisition shall be determined by the Collector

without the previous approval of the State

Government or such officer as the State

Government may appoint in this behalf.

Provided further that, the State Government

while issuing the general order under the preceding

proviso shall adhere to the provisions of the Right

to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,

2013 relating to the determination of amount of

compensation in accordance with the First

Schedule, and rehabilitation and resettlement

specified in the Second and Third Schedules, being

beneficial to the affected families.

(3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section

(3), if after the case is referred to the Collector

under that sub-section but before he has finally

determined the amount of compensation, such

amount is determined by agreement between the

State Government and the person to be

compensated, the compensation shall be

determined by the Collector in accordance with

such agreement.

(4)Before finally determining the amount of

compensation, the Collector shall give an ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*141* MIDC LATUR

opportunity to every person to be compensated to

state his cease as to the amount of compensation.

(5) In determining the amount of compensation, the

Collector shall be guided by the provisions

contained in sections 26 to 30 and other relevant

provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation

and Resettlement Act, 2013, subject to the

modifications that, the reference in section 26 to

“the date on which notification has been issued

under section 11”shall be the reference as “the date

of the service of publication of the notice under

sub-section (2) of section 32 of this Act in the

manner for the time being laid down under this

Act”, and the reference in section 28 to “the time

of the publication of the declaration under section

19”shall be the reference as “the date of the

publication of the notice under sub-section (1) of

section 32 of this Act in the Official Gazette.”

Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-

section, the date of the service of a notice under

sub-section (2) of section 32 of this Act shall

before the 8th day of June, 1967 mean the date on

which the notice is served in the manner laid down

in section 52 of this Act; and on and after the 8th

day of June, 1967 the date of the publication of a

notice under the said sub-section (2) of section 32

shall be the date on which the notice is published

in the Official Gazette.

(6)For the purpose of determining the amount of

compensation -

(a)the Collector shall have power to require

any person to deliver to him such returns and

assessments as he considers necessary;

(b)the Collector shall also have power to

require any person known or believed to be

interested in the land to deliver to him a statement

containing, as far as may be practicable, the name

of every other person having any interest in the

land as co-owner, mortgagee, tenant, or otherwise,

and the nature of such interest, and of the rents and

profits (if any) received or receivable on account

thereof for three years next preceding the date of

the statement. ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*142* MIDC LATUR

(7)Every person required to deliver a return,

assessment or statement under sub-section (6) shall

be deemed to be legally bound to do so within the

meaning of section 175 and section 176 of the

Indian Penal Code.

(8)The Collector may hear expert witnesses if it be

necessary to do so in any particular case.

(9)The Collector or any officer authorised by him in

this behalf shall be entitled to enter on and inspect

any land which is subject to proceedings before

him.

(10)The Collector shall dispose of every case referred

to him under sub-section (3) for determination of

compensation as expeditiously as possible and in

any case within such time as may be prescribed by

rules.

(11)The Collector shall determine the amount of cost

incurred in any case disposed of by him under the

section, and by what persons and in what

proportions they are to be paid.

(12) Where any case is referred to any Collector under

sub-section (3), the State Government may, at any

stage, by order in writing and for reasons to be

recorded therein, transfer it to any other Collector,

and upon such transfer, unless some special

directions are given in the order, the Collector to

whom the case is transferred may hear and dispose

of the case from the stage at which it was

transferred, or the case may be heard and disposed

of by him de novo.”

13. Sections 6 and 16 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 :-

“6. Declaration that land is required for a public

purpose.

(1) Subject to the provision of Part VII of this Act,

when the appropriate Government is satisfied, after

considering the report, if any, made under section

5A, sub-section (2), that any particular land is

needed for a public purpose, or for a company, a

declaration shall be made to that effect under the ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*143* MIDC LATUR

signature of a Secretary to such Government or of

some officer duly authorized to certify its orders

and different declarations may be made from time

to time in respect of different parcels of any land

covered by the same notification under section 4,

sub-section (1) irrespective of whether one report

or different reports has or have been made

(wherever required) under section 5-A, sub-section

(2):

Provided that no declaration in respect of

any particular land covered by a notification under

section 4, sub-section (1)-

(i) published after the commencement of the

Land Acquisition (Amendment and Validation)

Ordinance, 1967 (1 of 1967), but before the

commencement of the Land Acquisition

(Amendment) Act, 1984 (68 of 1984), shall be

made after the expiry of three years from the date

of the publication of the notification; or

(ii) published after the commencement of

the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (68

of 1984), shall be made after the expiry of one year

from the date of the publication of the notification:

Provided further that no such declaration

shall be made unless the compensation to be

awarded for such property is to be paid by a

company, or wholly or partly out of public

revenues or some fund controlled or managed by a

local authority.

Explanation 1. - In computing any of the

periods referred to in the first proviso, the period

during which any action or proceeding to be taken

in pursuance of the notification issued under

section 4, sub-section (1), is stayed by an order of a

Court shall be excluded.

Explanation 2. - Where the compensation to

be awarded for such property is to be paid out of

the funds of a corporation owned or controlled by

the State, such compensation shall be deemed to be

compensation paid out of public revenues.

(2) Every declaration shall be published in the Official

Gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in

the locality in which the land is situated of which

at least one shall be in the regional language, and ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*144* MIDC LATUR

the Collector shall cause public notice of the

substance of such declaration to be given at

convenient places in the said locality (the last of

the dates of such publication and the giving of such

public notice, being hereinafter referred to as the

date of the publication of the declaration), and such

declaration shall state the district or other territorial

division in which the land is situate, the purpose

for which It is needed, its approximate area, and,

where a plan shall have been made of the land, the

place where such plan may be inspected.

(3) The said declaration shall be conclusive evidence

that the land is needed for a public purpose or for a

company, as the case may be; and, after making

such declaration, the appropriate Government may

acquire the land in manner hereinafter appearing.”

“16.Power to take possession.

When the Collector has made an award under

section 11, he may take possession of the land,

which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the

Government, free from all encumbrances.”

14. He then submits that the publication in the gazette

under Section 32(1) of the MID Act will have an equivalent

effect to Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He points

out that the award was delivered by the SLAO on 03.01.1998.

15. Shri Kumbhakoni has then delved upon the theory

of legislation by incorporation and the theory of legislation by

reference and the difference between the two. He submits that

sub-section (5) to Section 33 of the MID Act, as regards

compensation, has undergone an amendment due to the ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*145* MIDC LATUR

introduction of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency

in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013

(for short, “the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013”). For all

purposes, an un-amended sub-section (5) will have to be relied

upon while deciding this case.

16. Section 33(5) of the MID Act reads as under :-

Section 33(5) of the MID Act

“33(5) In determining the amount of compensation, the

Collector shall be guided by the provisions

contained in sections 26 to 30 and other relevant

provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation

and Resettlement Act, 2013, subject to the

modifications that, the reference in section 26 to

“the date on which notification has been issued

under section 11”shall be the reference as “the date

of the service of publication of the notice under

sub-section (2) of section 32 of this Act in the

manner for the time being laid down under this

Act”, and the reference in section 28 to “the time

of the publication of the declaration under section

19”shall be the reference as “the date of the

publication of the notice under sub-section (1) of

section 32 of this Act in the Official Gazette.”

Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-

section, the date of the service of a notice under

sub-section (2) of section 32 of this Act shall

before the 8th day of June, 1967 mean the date on

which the notice is served in the manner laid down

in section 52 of this Act; and on and after the 8th

day of June, 1967 the date of the publication of a

notice under the said sub-section (2) of section 32

shall be the date on which the notice is published

in the Official Gazette.” ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*146* MIDC LATUR

17. Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894:-

“23. Matters to be considered on determining

compensation. -

(1) In determining the amount of compensation to be

awarded for land acquired under this Act, the Court

shall take into consideration --

first, the market-value of the land at the date

of the publication of the [notification under section

4, sub-section (1)];

secondly, the damage sustained by the

person interested, by reason of the taking of any

standing crops trees which may be on the land at

the time of the Collector's taking possession

thereof;

thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the

person interested, at the time of the Collector's

taking possession of the land, by reason of serving

such land from his other land;

fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by

the person interested, at the time of the Collector's

taking possession of the land, by reason of the

acquisition injuriously affecting his other property,

movable or immovable, in any other manner, or his

earnings;

fifthly, in consequence of the acquisition of

the land by the Collector, the person interested is

compelled to change his residence or place of

business, the reasonable expenses (if any)

incidental to such change, and

sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide

resulting from diminution of the profits of the land

between the time of the publication of the

declaration under section 6 and the time of the

Collector's taking possession of the land.

(1A) In addition to the market value of the land, as

above provided, the Court shall in every case

award an amount calculated at the rate of twelve

per centum per annum on such market value for

the period commencing on and from the date of the

publication of the notification under section 4, sub- ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*147* MIDC LATUR

section (1), in respect of such land to the date of

the award of the Collector or the date of taking

possession of the land, whichever is earlier.

Explanation. - In computing the period

referred to in this sub-section, any period or

periods during which the proceedings for the

acquisition of the land were held up on account of

any stay or injunction by the order of any Court

shall be excluded.]

(2) In addition to the market value of the land as above

provided, the Court shall in every case award a

sum of [thirty per centum] on such market value,

in consideration of the compulsory nature of the

acquisition.”

“24.Matters to be neglected in determining

compensation. -

But the Court shall not take into

consideration -

first, the degree of urgency which has led to

the acquisition;

secondly, any disinclination of the person

interested to part with the land acquired;

thirdly, any damage sustained by him

which, if caused by a private person, would not

render such person liable to a suit;

fourthly, any damage which is likely to be

caused to the land acquired, after the date of the

publication of the declaration under section 6, by

or in consequence of the use to which it will be

put;

fifthly, any increase to the value of the land

acquired likely to accrue from the use to which it

will be put when acquired;

sixthly, any increase to the value of the

other land of the person interested likely to accrue

from the use to which the land acquired will be

put;

seventhly, any outlay or improvements on,

or disposal of the land acquired, commenced, made

or effected without the sanction of the Collector

after the date of the publication of the [notification

under section 4, sub-section (1); [or]

[eighthly, any increase to the value of the ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*148* MIDC LATUR

land on account of its being put to any use, which

is forbidden by law or opposed to public policy.] .”

18. In support of his contentions that Section 1(3) of the

MID Act is comparable, not equivalent to Section 4(1) of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, he relies upon Avadhut Rokdoba

Shinde and others vs. State of Maharashtra, 2013 (5) Mh.L.J.

330, Gajanan Damodhar Shingare and another vs. Sub- Registrar

Class-I, Karanja Ghadge and others, 2015 (4) Mh.L.J. 339 and

Shaikh Kalim Shaikh Mohammad and another vs. the State of

Maharashtra and others, Writ Petition No.10895/2017

(Aurangabad) judgment dated 25.09.2017.

19. In Avadhut Rokdoba Shinde (supra), it has been held

in paragraphs 15 and 19 as under :-

“15.That, so far as locus standi of petitioners to raise

objection to the acquisition proceedings, is

concerned, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that a

notification, as contemplated by Section 1(3) of the

Act of 1961, has been issued on 15.04.1998

whereby, by virtue of provisions of Section 31,

provisions of Chapter VI of the Act are made

applicable. A notification under Section 1(3) is

comparable with notification under Section 4 of the

Land Acquisition Act. Once a notified area is

declared, post notification sales of the land, situate

in the notified area, are illegal and such transfers

shall not bind the State. The purchasers of the land

post notification do not get entitlement to challenge

the acquisition proceedings.”

“19.Thus, since petitioners are purchasers of small ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*149* MIDC LATUR

plots of land after publication of notification under

Section 1(3) of the Act of 1961, which is

comparable to Section 4 of the Land Acquisition

Act, they do not have entitlement to challenge

acquisition proceedings.”

(Emphasis supplied)

20. In Gajanan Damodhar Shingare (supra), it has been

held in paragraph 6 as under :-

“6.The later Division Bench judgment in Avadhut

Rokdoba Shinde & ors. v. State of Maharashtra &

ors., supra, considered the provisions of Section

1(3), 31 and 32 of MIDC Act and then held that the

notification under Section 1(3) is equivalent to

notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition

Act. This observation appears in paragraph 15 of

the said judgment.”

21. In Shaikh Kalim Shaikh Mohammad (supra), it has

been held in paragraph 8 as under :-

“8. Similar facts were before this Court in Avadhut

Rokdoba Shinde & others (supra). Taking into

consideration the earlier decisions of the Hon'ble

Apex Court, the Division Bench of this Court has

come to the conclusion that the petitioners therein,

who were the buyers, do not have legal entitlement

to challenge the acquisition proceedings since the

petitioners are purchasers of small pieces of plots.

It was held that the notification under Section 1(3)

read with Section 30 of the MID Act, which is

comparable with notification under Section 4 of the

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, does not confer any

such right. Though, in this case, the distinguishing

factor is that the petitioners, who are the sellers, are

not challenging the acquisition, but they want the

agreement to sell to be executed definitely with an ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*150* MIDC LATUR

intention to create a right in favour of the

prospective purchaser.”

22. Shri Kumbhakoni has then referred to Section 23(1)

(firstly) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and has canvassed that

it is equivalent to Section 32(2) of the MID Act. He has then

referred to Section 24 (firstly) and has canvassed that the Court

should not take into consideration the degree of urgency, which

has led to the acquisition. He has also referred to Section 24

(fifthly) to contend that any increase in the value of the land of

the person interested, likely to accrue from the use which the

land acquired will be put to, is not to be taken into consideration

by the Court. In this context, he has relied upon the Maharashtra

Industrial Development Corporation vs. Bhagatdasi

Rajendrakumar Verma, 2016(3) Mh.L.J. 252 and Rajashekar

Sankappa Taradandi and others vs. Asstt. Commissioner and

Land Acquisition Officer and others, (1996) 9 SCC 642.

23. In Bhagatdasi Rajendrakumar Verma (supra), it has

been held in paragraph 6 as under :-

“6.There is absolutely no evidence laid by the

respondents-claimants to establish all these facts.

The persons from the concerned department have

not been called as witnesses. The rates mentioned

in the ready-recknor have not been placed on

record. In terms of Section 24 of the Land ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*151* MIDC LATUR

Acquisition Act, the Court is prohibited from

taking into consideration any increase to the value

of the land acquired likely to accrue from the use

to which it will be put when acquired. Hence, the

future development and potential prospective use

of the acquisition are not the relevant

circumstances to be taken into consideration by the

Court to determine the market value of the land as

has been held by the Apex Court in its decision in

the case of Tarlochan Singh and another vrs. State

of Punjab and others reported in (1995) 2 SCC

424.”

(Emphasis supplied)

24. In Rajashekar Sankappa Taradandi (supra), it has

been held in paragraph 6 as under :-

“6.The High Court has rightly rejected the approach

adopted by the Reference Court. In view of the fact

that as on the date of the notification there was no

development in that area, though the lands were

capable to be put to non agricultural use and that

Section 24, clause fifthly prohibits taking into

consideration of the future potentiality because of

acquisition in determining compensation, the High

Court rightly had determined the compensation at

Rs.65,000/- per acre. As the State did not file any

appeal, we confirm the High Court order and find

no justification to further enhance the market

value.”

(Emphasis supplied)

25. With regard to Section 51A of the Land Acquisition

Act, he submits that even a certified copy of a document

registered under the Registration Act, 1908 including a copy

given under Section 57 of the Land Acquisition Act, may be ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*152* MIDC LATUR

accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such

document. He points out that the 13 sale deeds produced by the

MIDC, were rejected and 23 sale deeds produced by the State

were discarded, lock stock and barrel, by the Reference Court.

26. He relies upon Cement Corporation of India Ltd. vs.

Purya and others, (2004) 8 SCC 270, especially paragraphs 1 to

5, 18 to 29, 31, 32, 34 and 35, which read as under :-

“1.Noticing a conflict between two 3-Judge Benches

of this Court in the case of Special Deputy

Collector v. Kurra Sambasiva Rao, (1997) 6 SCC

41 and Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal

Revenue Officer v. Narasaiah, (2001) 3 SCC 530,

another 3-Judge Bench of this Court on 31st of

July, 2001 considered it appropriate to place

C.A.No.6986/99 for consideration by a larger

Bench. It is in this background, the above appeal

and other connected appeals are now before us.

2.In Kurra Sambasiva Rao's case (supra), this Court

held that by introducing Section 51A in the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter LA Act) the

Legislature only facilitated the parties concerned to

produce a certified copy of a sale transaction in

evidence and nothing more. This is what the Court

observed in the said case:

"Section 51-A only dispenses with the

production of the original sale deed and directs to

receive certified copy for the reason that parties to

the sale transaction would be reluctant to part with

the original sale deed since acquisition proceedings

would take long time before award of the

compensation attains finality and in the meanwhile

the owner of the sale deed is precluded from using

the same for other purposes vis-a-vis this land. The

marking of the certified copy per se is not

admissible in evidence unless it is duly proved and

the witnesses, viz., the vendor or the vendee, are ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*153* MIDC LATUR

examined."

3.According to the above judgment Section 51-A

only dispenses with the production of the original

sale deed and permits the receiving of a certified

copy of such document in evidence. It is further

held that the marking of certified copy per se does

not make the contents of such document

admissible in evidence unless it is duly proved and

witnessed, that is, by the examination of the vendor

or the vendee.

4.In the subsequent case of V.Narasaiah (supra),

though this Court did not notice earlier judgment in

Kurra Sambasiva Rao's case noticing certain other

judgments which took similar view disagreed with

the said view and held that the object of the Act

was not only to permit the production of certified

copy of the sale transactions but was also to accept

the same as evidence of the transactions. This is

what the courts had to say in V.Narasaiah's case in

regard to the insertion of Section 51-A in the LA

Act:-

“11. If the only purpose served by Section

51-A is to enable the court to admit the copy of the

document in evidence there was no need for a

legislative exercise because even otherwise the

certified copy of the document could have been

admitted in evidence. Section 64 of the Evidence

Act says that "documents must be proved by

primary evidence except in the cases hereinafter

mentioned". Section 65 mentions the cases in

which secondary evidence can be given of the

existence, condition or contents of a document.

One of the cases included in the list is detailed in

clause (f) of the section which reads thus :

"65. (f) When the original is a document of

which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or

by any other law in force in India, to be given in

evidence";

12.Section 57 of the Registration Act,

1908 enables anyone to apply for a copy of the

entries in Book No. 1 (the said Book is meant for

keeping the register of the documents as well as

non-testamentary documents relating to immovable

property). When any person applies for a copy of it ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*154* MIDC LATUR

the same shall be given to him. Sub-section (5) of

Section 57 of that Act says that:

"57.(5) All copies given under this section

shall be signed and sealed by the registering officer

and shall be admissible for the purpose of proving

the contents of the original documents."

13.If the position regarding admissibility of the

contents of a document which is a certified copy

falling within the purview of Section 57(5) of the

Registration Act was as adumbrated above, even

before the introduction of Section 51-A in the LA

Act, could there be any legislative object in

incorporating the said new provision through Act

68 of 1984? It must be remembered that the State

has the burden to prove the market value of the

lands acquired by it for which the State may have

to depend upon the prices of lands similarly

situated which were transacted or sold in the recent

past, particularly those lands situated in the

neighbouring areas. The practice had shown that

for the State officials it was a burden to trace out

the persons connected with such transactions

mentioned in the sale deeds and then to examine

them in court for the purpose of proving such

transactions. It was in the wake of the aforesaid

practical difficulties that the new Section 51-A

was introduced in the LA Act."

5.From the above, we notice that in the latter

judgment of V.Narasaiah, this Court interpreted the

scope of Section 51-A to include the production of

certified copy of sale transaction and to make the

same admissible in evidence without having to

examine the vendor or the vendee of the said

document to prove the contents of the document.”

“18.From the above, it is seen that till the judgment of

the three Judge Bench in V. Narasaiah's case

(supra), the consensus of judicial opinion was that

Section 51-A was enacted for the limited purpose

of enabling a party to produce certified copy of a

registered sale transaction in evidence only and for

proving the contents of the said document the

parties had to lead oral evidence as contemplated

in the Evidence Act. ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*155* MIDC LATUR

19.A careful perusal of the judgment in Kurra

Sambasiva Rao's case and other cases which fall in

line with the said view discloses that they

proceeded on the basis that prior to the insertion of

Section 51-A in the LA Act, the Evidence Act did

not permit the production of a certified copy of the

registered sale transaction in evidence. Therefore,

by the insertion of Section 51-A the legislature

merely enabled a party to get over that problem.

Thereafter, according to the said judgments, the

party concerned had to prove the contents of the

document by adducing oral evidence separately to

prove the contents of the document.

20.The above view of the Court in Kurra Sambasiva

Rao's case, in our opinion, is not the correct

position in law. Even prior to the insertion of

Section 51-A of the Act the provisions of the

Evidence Act and the Registration Act did permit

the production of a certified copy in evidence. This

has been clearly noticed in the judgment in

Narsaiah's case wherein the court relying on

Sections 64 and 65(f) of the Evidence Act read

with Section 57(5) of the Registration Act held that

production of a certified copy of a registered sale

document in evidence was permissible in law even

prior to insertion of Section 51-A in the LA Act.

We are in agreement with the said view expressed

by this Court in Narasaiah's case.

21.In the above background the question for our

consideration would be, what then is the real object

of inserting 51A in LA Act?

22.In the ordinary course a deed of sale is the

evidence of a transaction by reason whereof for a

consideration mentioned therein the title and

interest in an immovable property specified therein

is transferred by the vendor to the vendee.

Genuineness of such transaction may be in

question. In a given situation the quantum of

consideration or the adequacy thereof may also fall

for adjudication. The Courts, more often than not,

are called upon to consider the nature of the

transaction. Whenever a transaction evidenced by a

sale deed is required to be brought on record, the

execution thereof has to be proved in accordance ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*156* MIDC LATUR

with law. For proving such transaction, the original

sale deed is required to be brought on record by

way of primary evidence. Only when primary

evidence is not available, a certified copy of the

sale deed can be taken on record. Such certified

copies evidencing any transaction are admissible in

evidence, if the conditions precedent therefor in

terms of Section 75 of the Indian Evidence Act are

fulfilled. The transaction evidenced by the sale

deed must be proved in accordance with law.

23.Evidences are of different types. It may be direct,

indirect or real evidence. The existence of a given

thing or fact is proved either by its actual

production or by the testimony or admissible

declaration of someone who has himself perceived

it. Such evidence would be direct evidence.

Presumptive evidence which is an indirect

evidence would mean that when other facts are,

thus, proved, the existence of the given fact may be

logically inferred. Although the factum probandum

and the factum probantia connote direct evidence,

the former is superior in nature.

24.The terms 'primary and secondary evidence' apply

to the kinds of proof that may be given to the

contents of a document, irrespective of the purpose

for which such contents, when proved, may be

received. Primary evidence is an evidence which

the law requires to be given first; secondary

evidence is evidence which may be given in the

absence of that better evidence when a proper

explanation of its absence has been given.

However, there are exceptions to the

aforementioned rule.

25.Section 51-A of the Land Acquisition Act seeks to

make an exception to the aforementioned rule.

26.In the acquisition proceedings, sale deeds are

required to be brought on records for the purpose

of determining market value payable to the owner

of the land when it is sought to be acquired.

27.Although by reason of the aforementioned

provision the parties are free to produce original

documents and prove the same in accordance with

the terms of the rules of evidence as envisaged

under the Indian Evidence Act, the LA Act ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*157* MIDC LATUR

provides for an alternative thereto by inserting the

said provision in terms whereof the certified copies

which are otherwise secondary evidence may be

brought on record evidencing a transaction. Such

transactions in terms of the aforementioned

provision may be accepted in evidence. Acceptance

of an evidence is not a term of art. It has an

etymological meaning. It envisages exercise of

judicial mind to the materials on record.

Acceptance of evidence by a court would be

dependent upon the facts of the case and other

relevant factors. A piece of evidence in a given

situation may be accepted by a court of law but in

another it may not be.

28.Section 51-A of the L.A. Act may be read literally

and having regard to the ordinary meaning which

can be attributed to the term 'acceptance of

evidence' relating to transaction evidenced by a

sale deed, its admissibility in evidence would be

beyond any question. We are not oblivious of the

fact that only by bringing a documentary evidence

in the record it is not automatically brought on the

record. For bringing a documentary evidence on

the record, the same must not only be admissible

but the contents thereof must be proved in

accordance with law. But when the statute enables

a court to accept a sale deed on the records

evidencing a transaction, nothing further is

required to be done. The admissibility of a certified

copy of sale deed by itself could not be held to be

inadmissible as thereby a secondary evidence has

been brought on record without proving the

absence of primary evidence. Even the vendor or

vendee thereof is not required to examine

themselves for proving the contents thereof. This,

however, would not mean that contents of the

transaction as evidenced by the registered sale deed

would automatically be accepted. The legislature

advisedly has used the word 'may'. A discretion,

therefore, has been conferred upon a court to be

exercised judicially, i.e., upon taking into

consideration the relevant factors.

29.In V.Narasaiah's case, this Court correctly

understood the said scope and object of insertion of ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*158* MIDC LATUR

Section 51-A in the LA Act when it held thus :

"It was in the wake of the aforesaid practical

difficulties that the new Section 51A was

introduced in the LA Act. When the section says

that certified copy of a registered document "may

be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded

in such document" it enables the court to treat what

is recorded in the document, in respect of the

transactions referred to therein, as evidence."”

“31.Thus, the reasoning of this Court in Narasaiah's

case that Section 51-A enables the party producing

the certified copy of a sale transaction to rely on

the contents of the document without having to

examine the vendee or the vendor of that document

is the correct position in law. This finding in

Narasaiah's case is also supported by the decision

of this Court in the case of Mangaldas Raghavji

Ruparel (supra).

32.Therefore, we have no hesitation in accepting this

view of the court in the Narasaiah's case as the

correct view.”

“34.In M.S. Madhusoodhanan v. Kerala Kaumudi (P)

Ltd., [(2004) 9 SCC 204], it is stated :

"119. …. They are rules of evidence which

attempt to assist the judicial mind in the matter of

weighing the probative or persuasive force of

certain facts proved in relation to other facts

presumed or inferred (ibid). Sometimes a

discretion is left with the court either to raise a

presumption or not as in Section 114 of the

Evidence Act. On other occasions, no such

discretion is given to the court so that when a

certain set of facts is proved, the court is bound to

raise the prescribed presumption. But that is all.

The presumption may be rebutted."

35.A registered document in terms of Section 51-A of

the Act may carry therewith a presumption of

genuineness. Such a presumption, therefore, is

rebuttable. Raising a presumption, therefore, does

not amount to proof; it only shifts the burden of

proof against whom the presumption operates for

disproving it. Only if the presumption is not ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*159* MIDC LATUR

rebutted by discharging the burden, the court may

act on the basis of such presumption. Even when in

terms of the Evidence Act, a provision has been

made that the court shall presume a fact, the same

by itself would not be irrebuttable or conclusive.

The genuineness of a transaction can always fall

for adjudication, if any question is raised in this

behalf.”

(Emphasis supplied)

27. With regard to sale instances, he tenders a ready

reference chart and submits that the sale instances, not more than

five years prior to the notification dated 24.04.1992, could be

considered. Sale instances between 07.05.1992 to 04.03.1993

may be considered with great amount of caution and

circumspection. Sale deeds after 04.03.1993, will have to be out-

rightly ignored. He then refers to the ready-reckoner chart and

submits that the sale instances at Sr.Nos.(1) dated 27.05.1987, (2)

dated 05.11.1992 and (3) dated 03.06.1993 could only be

considered. The MIDC produced sale deeds with reference to all

the three villages. Whereas, the claimants produced sale deeds

only from one village, namely, Harangul and that too with regard

to sale of such parcels of land which were abutting the road,

commonly understood as “road-touch land”. This was

intentionally done to show higher sale rates so as to jack up the

compensation amount. Such sale instances pertain to small ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*160* MIDC LATUR

parcels of land measurable in square feet and the claimants

succeeded in impressing the three LAR Courts, who have

delivered the 39 impugned awards granting more than Rs.840

crores of compensation amounts when the SLAO had granted

about Rs.11.61 crores. Shri Kumbhakoni has placed heavy

reliance upon the order of this Court (Coram : B.R.Gavai, (as His

Lordship then was) and N.D.Deshpande, JJ) dated 25.09.2009

delivered in Civil Application No.2232/2009 in First Appeal

No.2352/2009 (MIDC, Latur vs. Balu Chima Kaile and others)

and other group of matters.

28. Shri Kumbhakoni has then relied upon Basant

Kumar and others vs. Union of India and others, (1996) 11 SCC

542, Ramanlal Deochand Shah vs. State of Maharashtra and

another, (2013) 14 SCC 50 and Loveleen Kumar and others vs.

State of Haryana and others, (2018) 7 SCC 492 with regard to the

role of the Judge in such matters. He has referred to the “Arm

Chair Rule”.

29. In Basant Kumar (supra), it has been held in

paragraph 5 as under :-

“5.Shri N.C. Jain, the learned senior counsel

appearing for the appellants, contended that in RFA

No.55/of 1970 Raghuvir Singh vs. Union of India ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*161* MIDC LATUR

arising out of the same notification, another

Division Bench of the High Court had determined

the compensation at the rate of Rs.8700/- per bigha

and less Rs.500 per bigha for the notified lands;

and similar was the view taken by another Bench

of that Court in LPA No.137 of 1980 and batch

decided on 19.04.1991 titled Chet Ram v. Union of

India. All these lands being situated in the same

village, the appellants are also entitled to the same

rate of compensation. The Union of India had not

filed any appeals against those cases. The lands are

possessed of the same potential value and,

therefore, the appellants are entitled to the same

compensation. We had adjourned the case on the

last occasion, as no one appeared for the Union Of

India; Since, even today, no one is appearing for

the Union of India, we have taken assistance of

Shri Jain and have waded through the entire

material evidence. The question is whether the

appellants are entitled to the same compensation as

was determined by the High Court in the appeals

arising out of Raghubir Singh's came and Chet

Ram's case? It has been firmly settled law by

beadroll of decisions of this Court that the Judge

determining the compensation under Section 23(1)

should sit in the armchair of a willing prudent

purchaser in an open market and see whether he

would offer the same amount proposed to be fixed

as market value as a willing and prudent buyer for

the same or similar land, i.e., land possessing all

the advantageous features and of same extent. This

test should always be kept in view and answer

affirmatively, taking in to consideration all relevant

facts and circumstances. If feats of imagination are

allowed to sway, he outsteps his domain of judicial

decision and lands in misconduct amenable to

disciplinary law. We have gone through the record

and judgments in Chet Ram's case and Raghubir

Singh's case decided by the two Division Benches.

The learned judges have adopted the principal that

the entire lands in the village shall be treated as

one unit and the compensation shall uniformly be

determined on that basis. The principal is wholly

unsustainable in law and cannot be a valid ground ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*162* MIDC LATUR

for determination of compensation. It is common

knowledge that even in the same village, no two

lands command same market value. The lands

abutting main road or national highway command

higher market value and as the location goes

Backward, market value of interior land would less

even for same kind of land. It is a settled legal

position that the lands possessed of only similar

potentiality or the value with similar advantages

offer comparable parity of the value; it is common

knowledge that the lands in the village spread over

the vast extent. In this case it is seen that land is as

vast as admeasuring 1669 bighas, 18 biswas of

land in the village. So , all lands cannot and should

not be classified as possessed of same market

value. Burden is always on the claimant to prove

the market value and the Court should adopt

realistic standards and pragmatic approach in

evaluation of the evidence. No doubt, each

individual have different parcels of the land out of

that vast land. If that principle is accepted as

propounded by the High Court, irrespective of the

quality of the land, all will be entitled to the same

compensation. That principal is not the correct

approach in law. The doctrine of equality in

determination and payment of same compensation

fro all claimants involved in the same notification

is not good principal acceptable for the aforestated

reasons when both the lands are proved to be

possessed of same advantages, features etc, then

only equal compensation is permissible.”

(Emphasis supplied)

30. In Ramanlal Deochand Shah (supra), it has been

held in paragraph 7 as under :-

“7.We have heard learned counsel for the parties at

some length. It is trite that in a reference under

Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act on the

question of adequacy of compensation determined

by the collector, the burden to prove that the ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:26 :::

*163* MIDC LATUR

collector’s award does not correctly determine the

amount of compensation payable to the landowner

is upon the owner concerned. It is for the claimant

to prove that the amount awarded by the Collector

needs enhancement, and if so, to what extent. The

claimant can do so by adducing evidence, whether

oral or documentary which the Reference Court

would evaluate having regard to the provisions of

Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act

while determining the compensation payable to the

owners. To that extent the claimant is in the

position of a plaintiff before the Court. In the

absence of any evidence to prove that the amount

of award by the Collector does not represent the

true market value of the property as on the date of

the preliminary notification, the Reference Court

will be helpless and will not be justified in granting

any enhancement. The Court cannot go by

surmises and conjectures while answering the

reference nor can it assume the role of an Appellate

Court and enhance the amount awarded by

reappraising the material that was collected and

considered by the Collector. What is important to

remember is that a reference to a Civil Court is not

in the nature of an appeal from one forum to the

other where the appellate forum takes a view based

on the evidence before the forum below. The legal

position is settled by the decisions of this Court to

which we may at this stage refer.”

31. In Loveleen Kumar (supra), it has been held in

paragraphs 8 and 12 as under :-

“8.Having gone through the material on record and

after considering the arguments of the advocates,

we are of the opinion that the Reference Court, as

well as the High Court, have not considered the

sale deeds produced on behalf of the State for

determination of compensation. A chart of the sale

deeds on record filed before us by the learned

advocates appearing on behalf of the State reveals

prima facie the value of certain lands involved in

those sale deeds. The site plan of the village Hansi ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*164* MIDC LATUR

depicts such sold patches as being in the middle of

the acquired land. The lands in all the sale deeds

shown alongside the plan are in close proximity

and adjoining to the land acquired under the

Section 4 notification of the present case. There is

no reason as to why the High Court, while coming

to its conclusion, has not referred to the sale

statistics. If the sale statistics are to be ignored, the

High Court should have furnished reasons for

doing so.”

“12.This Court in the case of LAO v. Karigowda,

(2010) 5 SCC 708 discussed the burden upon each

party in reference and held that each case must be

examined on its own facts. It held as follows:

“28. We may notice that Part III provides for

procedure and rights of the claimants to receive

compensation for acquisition of their land and also

states various legal remedies which are available to

them under the scheme of the Act. Under Section

18 of the Act, the Reference Court determines the

quantum of compensation payable to the claimants.

Section 23 provides guidelines, which would be

taken into consideration by the court of competent

jurisdiction while determining the compensation to

be awarded for the acquired land. Section 24 of the

Act is a negative provision and states what should

not be considered by the court while determining

the compensation. In other words, Sections 23 and

24 of the Act provide a complete scheme which

can safely be termed as statutory guidelines and

factors which are to be considered or not to be

considered by the court while determining the

market value of the acquired land. These

provisions provide a limitation within which the

court has to exercise its judicial discretion while

ensuring that the claimants get a fair market value

of the acquired land with statutory and permissible

benefits. Keeping in view the scheme of the Act

and the interpretation which these provisions have

received in the past, it is difficult even to

comprehend that there is possibility of providing

any straitjacket formula which can be treated as

panacea to resolve all controversies uniformly, in

relation to determination of the value of the ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*165* MIDC LATUR

acquired land. This essentially must depend upon

the facts and circumstances of each case.

29.It is a settled principle of law that the onus to prove

entitlement to receive higher compensation is upon

the claimants. In Basant Kumar v. Union of India,

(1996) 11 SCC 542, this Court held that the

claimants are expected to lead cogent and proper

evidence in support of their claim. Onus primarily

is on the claimants, which they can discharge while

placing and proving on record sale instances and/or

such other evidences as they deem proper, keeping

in mind the method of computation for awarding of

compensation which they rely upon. In this very

case, this Court stated the principles of awarding

compensation and placed the matter beyond

ambiguity, while also capsulating the factors

regulating the discretion of the Court while

awarding the compensation. This principle was

reiterated by this Court even in Gafar v.

Moradabad Development Authority, [(2007) 7

SCC 614] and the Court held as under: (SCC p.

620, para 12)

“12. As held by this Court in various

decisions, the burden is on the claimants to

establish that the amounts awarded to them by the

Land Acquisition Officer are inadequate and that

they are entitled to more. That burden had to be

discharged by the claimants and only if the initial

burden in that behalf was discharged, the burden

shifted to the State to justify the award.”

Thus, the onus being primarily upon the

claimants, they are expected to lead evidence to

revert the same, if they so desire. In other words, it

cannot be said that there is no onus whatsoever

upon the State in such reference proceedings. The

court cannot lose sight of the facts and clear

position of documents, that obligation to pay fair

compensation is on the State in its absolute terms.

Every case has to be examined on its own facts and

the courts are expected to scrutinise the evidence

led by the parties in such proceedings.””

(Emphasis supplied) ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*166* MIDC LATUR

32. In Balu Chima Kaile (supra), this Court (Coram :

B.R.Gavai (as His Lordship then was) and N.D.Deshpande, JJ),

while admitting First Appeal No.2352/2009 (part of the appeals

before us), has observed in the order dated 25.09.2009 in Civil

Application No.2232/2009 in paragraph Nos.4 to 10 as under :-

“4. Perusal of the judgment and award passed by

the learned Judge of the Reference Court would

reveal that the learned Judge has not relied on

any of the comparable sale instances while

enhancing compensation. The learned Judge

has only by adopting process of conjunctures

and surmises and observing that the land for

MIDC cannot be acquired in a remote place,

and taking into consideration the compensation

which is granted in case of some other land for

some other village, has come to the conclusion

that the rate of Rs. 6000/- per R. would be

adequate compensation.

5. Perusal of the entire judgment would reveal

that the judgment is based on only conjunctures

and surmises without considering any

evidence. The learned Judge was at least

expected to give some reasons, as to why he

has jumped to a conclusion that the

compensation from Rs. 255/- per R. was

required to be increased to Rs. 6000/- per R.

6. This Bench is assigned with the present roster

with effect from 20th July 2009. In this period

of ten weeks, we have come across dozens of

matters decided by the same learned Judge

(Shri X. X. Xxxxxxxx). In all the matters, we

have found that the learned Judge has enhanced

the compensation without giving any valid

reasons. The compensation, on occasions, has

been enhanced more than 20 times, 30 times

than the one granted by the Collector. No ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*167* MIDC LATUR

doubt, that such a enhanced compensation

could have been granted, had there been

evidence available in that respect. However, in

all the cases, we have found that the learned

Judge only on the basis of conjunctures and

surmises, has increased the compensation

manifold. We find that the learned Judge has

not taken into consideration the law laid down

by the Apex Court or this court, while deciding

the cases before him.

7. The land acquisition cases involve a huge

money which come from the pocket of tax

payers. Such a litigation cannot be dealt with in

a cavalier and casual manner, as has been done

by the learned Judge of the Reference Court.

8. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to

grant stay to the award, subject to the condition

that the appellant deposits fifty percent amount

under the award within a period of eight weeks

from today.

9. Hence, we grant interim relief in terms of

prayer clause "A" of the Civil Applications, on

condition that the appellant deposits fifty

percent amount under the respective awards, in

this court, within a period of eight weeks from

today.

10. Copy of this order be sent to the learned

Registrar General of this court and also to the

learned Principal District Judge, Latur, (both by

fax) with a direction that the Land Acquisition

References pending before the said Judge (Shri

X. X. Xxxxxxxx) be withdrawn from the said

Judge with immediate effect.”

He submits that the above appeal is one of appeals,

which this Court is presently finally hearing in this group.

33. Shri Kumbhakoni has then canvassed that this is a ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*168* MIDC LATUR

peculiar case in which various parcels of lands, by avoiding

irrigated parcels, have been acquired for the development of the

MIDC with the intention of reducing the cost burden of

compensation. He, therefore, submits that the “Belting System”

would be a safe and sure method to be followed. Despite this

factual position, the Reference Court has not followed the

Belting System. He refers to Bhule Ram vs. Union of India and

others, (2014) 11 SCC 307 and Bijender and others vs. The State

of Haryana and another, (2018) 11 SCC 180 in support of his

contention for applying the Belting System in these cases.

34. In Bhule Ram (supra), it has been held in paragraphs

12 to 17 as under :-

“12.Where huge tract of land had been acquired and the

same is not continuous, the court has always

emphasised on applying the principle of belting

system for the reason that where different lands

with different survey numbers belonging to

different owners and having different locations,

cannot be considered to be a compact block. Land

having frontage on the highway would definitely

have better value than lands farther away from

highway. (Vide: Andhra Pradesh Industrial

Infrastructure Corporation Limited v. G. Mohan

Reddy & Ors., (2010) 15 SCC 412).

13.In Ashrafi v. State of Harayana, AIR 2013 SC

3654, this Court emphasised on belting system and

observed that while determining the market value

of the land, the court must be satisfied that the land

under exemplar is a similar land. (See also: Sher

Singh etc. etc. v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*169* MIDC LATUR

1991 SC 2048).

14. In Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd.

v. Assistant Commissioner & Land Acquisition

Officer, Gadag & Ors., (2010) 15 SCC 60, this

Court held that in towns and urban areas, distance

of half kilometer to one kilometer makes

considerable difference in price of the land.

Therefore, the court has to determine the market

value on the basis of the material produced before

it keeping in mind that some of the lands were

more advantageously situated.

15.In Ramanlal Deochand Shah v. State of

Maharashtra, AIR 2013 SC 3452, this Court held

that the burden of proof lies on the land owner and

in case he does not lead any evidence in support of

his claim to prove the inadequacy of market value

fixed of the land acquired, the court cannot help

him. (See also: Jawajee Nagnatham v. Revenue

Divl. Office and Land Acquisition Officer v.

Sreelatha Bhoopal).

16.In view of the above, the law can be summarised to

the effect that the market value of the land is to be

assessed keeping in mind the limitation prescribed

in certain exceptional circumstances under Section

23 of the Act. A guesswork, though allowed, is

permissible only to a limited extent. The market

value of the land is to be determined taking into

consideration the existing use of the land,

geographical situation/location of the land

alongwith the advantages/disadvantages i.e.

distance from the National or State Highway or a

road situated within a developed area etc. In urban

area even a small distance makes a considerable

difference in the price of land. However, the court

should not take into consideration the use for

which the land is sought to be acquired and its

remote potential value in future. In arriving at the

market value, it is the duty of the party to lead

evidence in support of its case, in absence of which

the court is not under a legal obligation to

determine the market value merely as per the

prayer of the claimant.

17.There may be a case where a huge tract of land is

acquired which runs though continuous, but to the ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*170* MIDC LATUR

whole revenue estate of a village or to various

revenue villages or even in two or more states.

Someone’s land may be adjacent to the main road,

others’ land may be far away, there may be persons

having land abounding the main road but the

frontage may be varied. Therefore, the market

value of the land is to be determined taking into

consideration the geographical situation and in

such cases belting system may be applied. In such

a fact- situation every claimant cannot claim the

same rate of compensation.”

(Emphasis supplied)

35. In Bijender (supra), it has been held in paragraphs

31 to 35 as under :-

“31.Coming first to the question as to whether the

Courts below were justified in applying the

"Belting System” for determining the market rates

of the acquired land in question?

32.We are of the considered opinion that keeping in

view the nature, extent, size, surrounding and

location of the acquired land, the Courts below

were justified in applying Belting System for

determining the market rate of the acquired land.

33.One cannot dispute that the Belting System is a

judicially accepted method for determining the fair

market value of the acquired land. It is applied in

appropriate cases when different parcels of lands

with different survey numbers belonging to

different owners and having different locations are

acquired which put together comprises of a large

chunk of land. Such chunk cannot be taken as a

compact block.

34.The acquired land having a frontage abutting the

highway/main road always has a better value as

compared to the land, which is away from the

highway/main road. Indeed, farther the land from

the highway/main road, lesser the value of such

land. In such a situation, where large pieces of land

having different locations are acquired, Belting

System is considered apposite for determining the

market value of the lands. (See Union of India v. ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*171* MIDC LATUR

Mangatu Ram, 1997 (6) SCC 59 and A.P.

Industrial Infrastructure Corpn. Ltd. v. G. Mohan

Reddy, 2010 (15) SCC 412).

35.In Belting System, the acquired land is usually

divided in two or three belts depending upon the

facts of each case. The market value of the front

belt abutting the main road is taken to fetch

maximum value whereas the second belt fetches

two third or so of the rate determined in relation to

the first belt and the third belt, if considered proper

to carve out, fetches half or so of the maximum. It

is again depending upon facts of each case.”

(Emphasis supplied)

36. He has then canvassed that the sale deeds after the

cut off date cannot be considered for reverse calculation. It is

more appropriate to take an old sale deed upto 4 to 5 years and

by adding the escalation percentage component, can draw the

approximate market rate of the land. He submits that the pit fall

in following reverse calculation is that after the land is put to use

for the development of the industrial area, there would be an

unexpected sudden escalation of prices of lands or an

orchestrated escalation, as the public would realize that the lands

can be sold for a fortune due to the development of the MIDC.

This leads to a sudden rise in the prices of land. We would refer

to the chart of the sale deeds evidencing an artificial rise,

subsequently in this judgment. The technique of considering the ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*172* MIDC LATUR

old sale deeds and adding 7.5 to 10% per annum escalation

component to draw an approximate value of the land, is not only

a time tested principle, but has also been recognized by law. He

refers to General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation

Limited vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and another, (2008) 14

SCC 745 and Bhupal Singh and others vs. State of Haryana,

(2015) 5 SCC 801.

37. In GM, ONGC (supra), it has been held in

paragraphs 15, 16 and 17 as under :-

“15. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of

determining the market value by providing

appropriate escalation over the proved market

value of nearby lands in previous years (as

evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition),

where there is no evidence of any

contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions

of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The

said method is reasonably safe where the relied-on-

sale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject

acquisition by only a few years, that is upto four to

five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it

relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a

reliable standard if the gap is only a few years,

may become unsafe and unreliable standard where

the gap is larger. For example, for determining the

market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting

the annual increase method with reference to a sale

or acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many

pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years,

the `rate' of annual increase may itself undergo

drastic change apart from the likelihood of

occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in

prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very

standard of increase. ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*173* MIDC LATUR

16. Much more unsafe is the recent trend to determine

the market value of acquired lands with reference

to future sale transactions or acquisitions. To

illustrate, if the market value of a land acquired in

1992 has to be determined and if there are no sale

transactions/acquisitions of 1991 or 1992 (prior to

the date of preliminary notification), the statistics

relating to sales/acquisitions in future, say of the

years 1994-95 or 1995-96 are taken as the base

price and the market value in 1992 is worked back

by making deductions at the rate of 10% to 15%

per annum. How far is this safe? One of the

fundamental principles of valuation is that the

transactions subsequent to the acquisition should

be ignored for determining the market value of

acquired lands, as the very acquisition and the

consequential development would accelerate the

overall development of the surrounding areas

resulting in a sudden or steep spurt in the prices.

Let us illustrate. Let us assume there was no

development activity in a particular area. The

appreciation in market price in such area would be

slow and minimal. But if some lands in that area

are acquired for a residential/commercial/industrial

layout, there will be all round development and

improvement in the infrastructure/

amenities/facilities in the next one or two years, as

a result of which the surrounding lands will

become more valuable. Even if there is no actual

improvement in infrastructure, the potential and

possibility of improvement on account of the

proposed residential/commercial/ industrial layout

will result in a higher rate of escalation in prices.

As a result, if the annual increase in market value

was around 10% per annum before the acquisition,

the annual increase of market value of lands in the

areas neighbouring the acquired land, will become

much more, say 20% to 30%, or even more on

account of the development / proposed

development. Therefore, if the percentage to be

added with reference to previous acquisitions/sale

transactions is 10% per annum, the percentage to

be deducted to arrive at a market value with

reference to future acquisitions/sale transactions ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*174* MIDC LATUR

should not be 10% per annum, but much more. The

percentage of standard increase becomes

unreliable. Courts should therefore avoid

determination of market value with reference to

subsequent/future transactions. Even if it becomes

inevitable, there should be greater caution in

applying the prices fetched for transactions in

future. Be that as it may.

17. In this case, the acquisition was in a rural area.

There was no evidence of any out-of-ordinary

developments or increases in prices in the area. We

are of the view that providing an escalation of

7.5% per annum over the 1987 price under Ex.15,

would be sufficient and appropriate to arrive at the

market value of acquired lands.”

(Emphasis supplied)

38. In Bhupal Singh (supra), it has been held in

paragraphs 26 and 27 as under :-

“26. We are not impressed by the submission of learned

senior counsel for the appellant when he submitted

that we should take into consideration the fair

market value of the adjacent land determined by

the Court which was acquired 10 years subsequent

to the acquisition in question in 1989-1990 and

then go on reducing its value 10% every year to

determine the fair market value of the land in

question. To say the least, this submission is

wholly misconceived being against the settled

principle of law relating to land acquisition cases.

27. As rightly argued by learned counsel for the

respondent, the fair market value of the acquired

land is required to be determined under Section 23

of the Act on the basis of the market rate of the

adjacent lands similarly situated to the acquired

lands prevailing on the date of acquisition or/and

prior to acquisition but not subsequent to the date

of acquisition. In appropriate cases, addition of

10% per annum escalation in the prices specified in

the sale deeds (if filed and relied on) in relation to ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*175* MIDC LATUR

adjacent similarly situated lands for fixing the

market value of the acquired land may be

permitted. Such is, however, not the case in hand.

Here is the case where firstly, no sale deeds were

filed by the appellants to prove the fair market

value of the acquired land and secondly, what they

now want this Court to do is to take into

consideration the rate of those lands which were

acquired ten years after the date of acquisition in

question and then reduce the value of such land by

10% every year so as to determine the fair market

value of the acquired land in question. In our view,

such procedure for determination is not provided in

the Act.”

(Emphasis supplied)

39. Shri Kumbhakoni submits that ideally, an escalation

of 7.5% has been advised in judicial pronouncements. In the

instant case, for the benefit of the claimants, the State is willing

to offer 10% per annum escalation by taking into account the old

sale deeds.

40. He has then drawn our attention to the size of the

lands acquired for the additional industrial area. He points out

that the claimants had shown sale instances in square feet and

that too at locations which were touching the road on the

northern side, though several parcels of land acquired were

admeasuring 3 Hectares and similar sizes, far away from the

road. The lands on the southern side of the railway line are not ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*176* MIDC LATUR

road touching and it is universally accepted that the lands

touching the road are more costlier than the lands touching the

railway lines. He has referred to Tarlochan Singh and another vs.

State of Punjab and others, (1995) 2 SCC 424 and State of

Haryana vs. Ram Singh, (2001) 6 SCC 254.

41. In Tarlochan Singh (supra), it has been held in

paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 as under :-

“2. Firstly, it was contended that the Division Bench

having determined the compensation was not

justified in deducting 1/3rd towards developmental

charges as the sales therein though were on

yardage basis and determined the compensation on

acreage basis @ Rs.58,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and

Rs.48,000/- etc. Though we find force in the

contention, the matter does not rest with that

conclusion. It is seen that the High Court in its

judgment has relied upon the sale transactions

small extents of 150 to 250 sq. yards which was

worked out on an average of Rs. 1,37,600/ -. They

were sold on yardage basis. The learned Judges

have determined market value on acreage basis and

deducted 1/3rd towards development charges and

determined the market value on that basis. The

question emerges, ultimately, whether the fixation

of the market value @ Rs.50,000/- and Rs.48,000/-

is unwarranted on the facts and circumstances of

these cases. It is seen that a land of magnitude of

881 acres when was acquired for planned

development of the town, a willing purchaser

would offer the same rates at which small plots

admeasuring to 120 to 250 sq. ft. were offered and

sold. It is impossible to accept that the lands would

fetch that price when a large track of land was

offered for sale in open market to willing buyer.

Under those circumstances, sale transactions are

absolutely and totally irrelevant and cannot form ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*177* MIDC LATUR

the basis to determine the compensation. Even

though the vendor or vendees were examined to

prove the sale transaction, we cannot determine

market value on that basis and award

compensation. The court has power and duty to

evaluate the evidence in proper perspective, apply

correct principles and award compensation. Since

the State did not file any appeals, we cannot

interfere with the award of the market value

determined @ Rs.50,000/- and Rs.48,400/- by the

Division Bench for the lands in appeals.

3. It is next contended that for lands in Jamalpur,

compensation was awarded at the rate of

Rs.50,000/-. The lands in Kuliawal were equally

situated and compensation paid at the rate of

Rs.39,000/per acre is unjust and arbitrary. We find

no force in the contention. Though some plans

have been produced before us to show that both the

lands are on the side of Tajpur Road, they were not

filed in the Reference Court not subjected them for

cross-examination of the L.A.C. of the respective

distances of the place, the quality of the land at the

respective village and the prices prevailing in each

village. It is common knowledge that even all the

lands in the same village may not possess the same

quality and command common market prices. It is

seen that the lands in Jamalpur are cutting across

the main road Ludhiana-Chandigarh and that,

therefore, the learned Judges have awarded the

compensation at different rates on the basis of

belting. Whereas Kuliawal lands are on the

northern side below Tajpur Road and the road is

not an important one. It was also stated in the

judgment that lands in Kuliawal village is not

abutting main road and that, therefore, the lands do

not command any higher value. Accordingly, the

market value was determined for the lands abutting

55 karams at different rate and for the rest of the

lands compensation was awarded @ Rs.39,000/-.

The appellants' lands are not within the belt.

Therefore, the classification made on the basis of

the situation of the land cannot be said to be

illegal. Since the lands situated in Kuliawal are not

on par with the lands in Jamalpur village, the ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*178* MIDC LATUR

distinction made by the High Court was right. The

learned Judges determined different rates of market

value on that basis.”

“5. It is next contended that the lands in the small

extents of about 33 sale transactions would show

that the lands are capable of fetching in future

higher market value and the notification itself was

published for the purpose of planned-development

of city. Therefore, the High Court was not justified

in determining the market value @ Rs.58,000/- for

Jamalpur area. Potential value for future

development should have been taken into

consideration in fixing the market value. Section

24 of the Land Acquisition Act expressly prohibits

and puts an embargo on the Court in taking the

factors mentioned in Section 24 as relevant in

determining the market value. Under these

circumstances, the future development and

potential prospective use of the acquisition etc. are

not relevant circumstances. Even the purpose of

acquisition also is not relevant. We are of the

opinion that the appellants are not entitled to

further increase for determination of compensation

and the appeals do not warrant interference. The

appeals are accordingly dismissed but without

costs since the respondents are not represented by

any counsel.”

42. In State of Haryana vs. Ram Singh (supra), it has

been held in paragraphs 5 and 6 as under :-

“5.Counsel for the State was right when he submitted

that the High Court erred in rejecting Exhibits R/2

and R/3 as inadmissible only on the ground that the

parties to the documents had not been examined by

the State. It is not the law that a certified copy of a

registered agreement for sale is inadmissible in

evidence unless the parties to the document are

examined to prove it. That would be contrary to

what Section 77 read with Sections 74(2) and 76 of

the Evidence Act, 1872 and more specifically

Section 51-A of the Act provide. As far as the ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*179* MIDC LATUR

provisions of the Evidence Act are concerned, a

certified copy of the registered sale deed is

admissible in evidence and does not need to be

proved by calling a witness. (See Madamanchi

Ramappa V. Muthaluru Bojjappa AIR 1963 SC

1633, at p.1637).

6.Section 51-A of the Act is to the same effect. In

Land Acquisition Officer & Mandal Revenue

officer v. V. Narasaiah, it was held that by virtue

of Section 51- A, a certified copy of a document

registered under the Registration Act, 1908

including a copy under Section 57 of the Act may

be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded

in such documents. It is open to the Court to accept

the certified copy as reliable evidence and without

examining parties to the documents. This does not

however preclude the Court from rejecting the

transaction itself as being malafide or sham

provided such a challenge is laid before the Court.”

(Emphasis supplied)

43. He submits that the three principles of deductions

that are applied to large tracts of land that are acquired, are (a)

development of infrastructure, (b) expenditure on development

and (c) de-escalation (waiting period).

44. He submits that the areas to be deducted from large

parcels of land, are such which are used for laying of roads,

roadside gutters, sewerage, truck terminals and effluent treatment

plant etc.. The cost towards development has to be deducted. He

relies upon Chandrashekar and others vs. Land Acquisition

Officer and another, (2012) 1 SCC 390 and Major General Kapil ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*180* MIDC LATUR

Mehra and others vs. Union of India and another, (2015) 2 SCC

262.

45. In Chandrashekar (supra), it has been held in

paragraphs 17 and 19 to 25 as under :-

“17. The present controversy calls for our determination

on the quantum of the deductions to be applied, to

the market value assessed on the basis of the

exemplar sale transaction, so as to ascertain the fair

compensation payable to the land loser. The only

factual parameters to be kept in mind are, the

factual inferences drawn in the foregoing

paragraph. On the issue in hand, we shall endeavor

to draw our conclusions from past precedents.”

“19.Based on the precedents on the issue referred to

above it is seen, that as the legal proposition on the

point crystallized, this Court divided the quantum

of deductions (to be made from the market value

determined on the basis of the developed exemplar

transaction) on account of development into two

components.

19.1Firstly, space/area which would have to be left out,

for providing indispensable amenities like

formation of roads and adjoining pavements,

laying of sewers and rain/flood water drains,

overhead water tanks and water lines, water and

effluent treatment plants, electricity sub-stations,

electricity lines and street lights,

telecommunication towers etc. Besides the

aforesaid, land has also to be kept apart for parks,

gardens and playgrounds. Additionally,

development includes provision of civic amenities

like educational institutions, dispensaries and

hospitals, police stations, petrol pumps etc. This

"first component", may conveniently be referred to

as deductions for keeping aside area/space for

providing developmental infrastructure.

19.2Secondly, deduction has to be made for the

expenditure/expense which is likely to be incurred

in providing and raising the infrastructure and civic

amenities referred to above, including costs for ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*181* MIDC LATUR

levelling hillocks and filling up low lying lands

and ditches, plotting out smaller plots and the like.

This "second component" may conveniently be

referred to as deductions for developmental

expenditure/expense.

20.It is essential to earmark appropriate deductions,

out of the market value of an exemplar land, for

each of the two components referred to above. This

would be the first step towards balancing the

differential factors. This would pave the way for

determining the market value of the undeveloped

acquired land on the basis of market value of the

developed exemplar land.

21.As far back as in 1982, this Court in Brigadier

Sahib Singh Kalha's case (supra) held, that the

permissible deduction could be upto 53 percent.

This deduction was divided by the Court into two

components. For the "first component" referred to

in the foregoing paragraph, it was held that a

deduction of 20 percent should be made. For the

"second component", it was held that the deduction

could range between 20 to 33 percent. It is

therefore apparent, that a deduction of upto 53

percent was the norm laid down by the Court as far

back as in 1982. The aforesaid norm remained

unchanged for a long duration of time, even

though, keeping in mind the peculiar facts and

circumstances emerging from case to case,

different deductions were applied by this Court to

balance the differential factors between the

exemplar land and the acquired land. Recently

however, this Court has approved a higher

component of deduction.

22.In 2009 in Lal Chand's case (supra) and in 2010 in

Andhra Pradesh Housing Board's case (supra), it

has been held, that while applying the sale

consideration of a small piece of developed land,

to determine the market value of a large tract of

undeveloped acquired land, deductions between 20

to 75 percent could be made. But in 2009 in Subh

Ram's case (supra), this Court restricted deductions

on account of the "first component" of

development, as also, on account of the "second

component" of development to 33-1/3 percent ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*182* MIDC LATUR

each. The aforesaid deductions would roughly

amount to 67 percent of the component of the sale

consideration of the exemplar sale transaction(s).

23. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the

analysis of the legal position referred to in the

foregoing two paragraphs, we are of the view that

there is no discrepancy on the issue, in the recent

judgments of this Court. In our view, for the "first

component" under the head of "development",

deduction of 33-1/3 percent can be made.

Likewise, for the "second component" under the

head of "development" a further deduction of 33-

1/3 percent can additionally be made. The facts and

circumstances of each case would determine the

actual component of deduction, for each of the two

components. Yet under the head of "development",

the applied deduction should not exceed 67

percent. That should be treated as the upper

benchmark. This would mean, that even if

deduction under one or the other of the two

components exceeds 33-1/3 percent, the two

components under the head of "development" put

together, should not exceed the upper benchmark.

24.In Lal Chand's case (supra) and in Andhra Pradesh

Housing Board's case (supra), this Court expressed

the upper limit of permissible deductions as 75

percent. Deductions upto 67 percent can be made

under the head of "development". Under what head

then, would the remaining component of

deductions fall? Further deductions would

obviously pertain to considerations other than the

head of "development".

25.Illustratively a deduction could be made keeping in

mind the waiting period required to raise

infrastructure, as also, the waiting period for sale

of developed plots and or built-up areas. This

nature of deduction may be placed under the head

"waiting period". Illustratively again, deductions

could also be made in cases where the exemplar

sale transaction, is of a date subsequent to the

publication of the preliminary notification. This

nature of deduction may be placed under the head

"de-escalation". Likewise, deductions may be

made for a variety of other causes which may arise ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*183* MIDC LATUR

in different cases. It is however necessary for us to

conclude, in the backdrop of the precedents on the

issue, that all deductions should not cumulatively

exceed the upper benchmark of 75 percent. A

deduction beyond 75 percent would give the

impression of being lopsided, or contextually

unreal, since the land loser would seemingly get

paid for only 25 percent of his land. This

impression is unjustified, because deductions are

made out of the market value of developed land,

whereas, the acquired land is undeveloped (or not

fully developed). Differences between the nature of

the exemplar land and the acquired land, it should

be remembered, is the reason/cause for applying

deductions.”

(Emphasis supplied)

46. In Major General Kapil Mehra (supra), it has been

held in paragraphs 32 to 38 and 40, as under :-

“32. While making one third deduction towards

development cost, the learned single Judge did not

keep in view the two essential components of

deduction for development. Deduction for

development consists of two components:- firstly,

appropriate deduction to be made towards the area

required to be utilized for roads, drains and

common facilities like parks etc.; secondly, further

deduction to be made towards the cost of

development, that is cost of levelling the land, cost

of laying roads and drains, erection of electrical

poles and water lines etc. For deduction of

development towards land and development

charges, the nature of development, conditions and

nature of the land, the land required to be set apart

under the Building Rules for roads, sewerage,

electricity, parks, water supply etc. and other

relevant circumstances involved are required to be

considered.

33. In Haryana State Agricultural Market Board And

Anr. vs. Krishan Kumar And Ors., (2011) 15 SCC ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*184* MIDC LATUR

297, it was held as under:

“10. It is now well settled that if the value of small

developed plots should be the basis, appropriate

deductions will have to be made therefrom towards

the area to be used for roads, drains, and common

facilities like park, open space, etc. Thereafter,

further deduction will have to be made towards the

cost of development, that is, the cost of leveling

the land, cost of laying roads and drains, and the

cost of drawing electrical, water and sewer lines.”

34. Consistent view taken by this Court is that one

third deduction is made towards the area to be used

for roads, drains, and other facilities, subject to

certain variations depending upon its nature,

location, extent and development around the area.

Further, appropriate deduction needs to be made

for development cost, laying roads, erection of

electricity lines depending upon the location of the

acquired land and the development that has taken

place around the area.

35. Reiterating the rule of one third deduction towards

development, in Sabhia Mohammed Yusuf Abdul

Hamid Mulla (Dead) by Lrs. and others v. Land

Acquisition Officer, (2012) 7 SCC 595, this Court

in paragraph 19 held as under:-

“19. In fixing the market value of the acquired

land, which is undeveloped or underdeveloped, the

courts have generally approved deduction of 1/3rd

of the market value towards development cost

except when no development is required to be

made for implementation of the public purpose for

which land is acquired. In Kasturi v. State of

Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 354) the Court held: (SCC

pp. 359-60, para 7)

“7… It is well settled that in respect of

agricultural land or undeveloped land which has

potential value for housing or commercial

purposes, normally 1/3rd amount of compensation

has to be deducted out of the amount of

compensation payable on the acquired land subject

to certain variations depending on its nature,

location, extent of expenditure involved for

development and the area required for road and

other civic amenities to develop the land so as to ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*185* MIDC LATUR

make the plots for residential or commercial

purposes. A land may be plain or uneven, the soil

of the land may be soft or hard bearing on the

foundation for the purpose of making construction;

may be the land is situated in the midst of a

developed area all around but that land may have a

hillock or may be low-lying or may be having deep

ditches. So the amount of expenses that may be

incurred in developing the area also varies. A

claimant who claims that his land is fully

developed and nothing more is required to be done

for developmental purposes, must show on the

basis of evidence that it is such a land and it is so

located. In the absence of such evidence, merely

saying that the area adjoining his land is a

developed area, is not enough, particularly when

the extent of the acquired land is large and even if

a small portion of the land is abutting the main

road in the developed area, does not give the land

the character or a developed area. In 84 acres of

land acquired even if one portion on one sides

abuts the main road, the remaining large area

where planned development is required, needs

laying of internal roads, drainage, sewer, water,

electricity lines, providing civic amenities, etc.

However, in cases of some land where there are

certain advantages by virtue of the developed area

around, it may help in reducing the percentage of

cut to be applied, as the developmental charges

required may be less on that account. There may be

various factual factors which may have to be taken

into consideration while applying the cut in

payment of compensation towards developmental

charges, may be in some cases it is more than 1/3rd

and in some cases less than 1/3rd. It must be

remembered that there is difference between a

developed area and an area having potential value,

which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area

is developed or adjacent to a developed area will

not ipso facto make every land situated in the area

also developed to be valued as a building site or

plot, particularly when vast tracts are acquired, as

in this case, for development purpose.”

The rule of 1/3rd deduction was reiterated in ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*186* MIDC LATUR

Tejumal Bhojwani v. State of U.P. ((2003)10 SCC

525, V.Hanumantha Reddy v. Land Acquisition

Officer, (2003) 12 SCC 642, H.P. Housing Board

V. Bharat S. Negi (2004) 2 SCC 184 and Kiran

Tandon v. Allahabad Development Authority,

(2004)10 SCC 745.”

36. While determining the market value of the

acquired land, normally one third deduction i.e.

331/3% towards development charges is allowed.

One third deduction towards development was

allowed in Special Tehsildar, L.A. Vishakapatnam

vs. A.Mangala Gowri, (1991) 4 SCC 218; Gulzara

Singh v. State of Punjab, (1993) 4 SCC 245;

Santosh Kumari v. State of Haryana (1996) 10

SCC 631; Revenue Divisional Officer-cum- LAO

v. Shaik Azam Saheb, (2009) 4 SCC 395; A.P.

Housing Board v. Manohar Reddy, (2010)12 SCC

707; Ashrafi v. State of Haryana, (2013) 5 SCC

527 and Kashmir Singh v. State of Haryana, (2014)

2 SCC 165.

37. Depending on nature and location of the acquired

land, extent of land required to be set apart and

expenses involved for development, 30% to 50%

deduction towards development was allowed in

Haryana State Agricultural Market Board and Anr.

vs. Krishan Kumar and Ors. (2011) 15 SCC 297;

Deputy Director Land Acquisition v. Malla

Atchinaidua AIR 2007 SC 740; Mummidi Apparao

(Dead by LR) vs. Nagarjuna Fertilizers &

Chemical Ltd., AIR 2009 SC 1506; and Lal Chand

v. Union of India (2009) 15 SCC 769.

38. In few other cases, deduction of more than 50%

was upheld. In the facts and circumstances of the

case in Basava and others v. Spl. Land Acquisition

Officer (1996) 9 SCC 640, this Court upheld the

deduction of 65%. In Kanta Devi v. State of

Haryana, (2008) 15 SCC 201, deduction of 60%

towards development charges was held to be legal.

This Court in Subh Ram v. State of Haryana,

(2010) 1 SCC 444, held that deduction of 67%

amount was not improper. Similarly, in

Chandrasekhar (dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. vs. LAO

& Anr., (2012) 1 SCC 390, deduction of 70% was

upheld.” ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*187* MIDC LATUR

“40.Rule of one third deduction towards development

appears to be the general rule. But so far as Delhi

Development Authority is concerned, or similar

statutory authorities, where well planned layouts

are put in place, larger land area may be utilized

for forming layout, roads, parks and other common

amenities. Percentage of deduction for

development of land to be made in DDA or similar

statutory authorities with reference to various types

of layout was succinctly considered by this Court

in Lal Chand v. Union of India, (2009) 15 SCC 769

and observing that the deduction towards the

development range from 20% to 75% of the price

of the plots, in paras 13 to 22, this Court held as

under:-

“13. The percentage of “deduction for

development” to be made to arrive at the market

value of large tracts of undeveloped agricultural

land (with potential for development), with

reference to the sale price of small developed plots,

varies between 20% to 75% of the price of such

developed plots, the percentage depending upon

the nature of development of the layout in which

the exemplar plots are situated.

14. The “deduction for development” consists

of two components. The first is with reference to

the area required to be utilized for developmental

works and the second is the cost of the

development works. For example, if a residential

layout is formed by DDA or similar statutory

authority, it may utilize around 40% of the land

area in the layout, for roads, drains, parks,

playgrounds and civic amenities (community

facilities), etc.

15. The development authority will also incur

considerable expenditure for development of

undeveloped land into a developed layout, which

includes the cost of leveling the land, cost of

providing roads, underground drainage and sewage

facilities, laying water lines, electricity lines and

developing parks ands civil amenities, which

would be about 35% of the value of the developed

plot. The two factors taken together would be the ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*188* MIDC LATUR

“deduction for development” and can account for

as much as 75% of the cost of the developed plot.

16. On the other hand, if the residential plot is

in an unauthorized private residential layout, the

percentage of “deduction for development” may be

far less. This is because in an unauthorized layout,

usually no land will be set apart for parks,

playgrounds and community facilities. Even if any

land is set apart, it is likely to be minimal. The

roads and drains will also be narrower, just

adequate for movement of vehicles. The amount

spent on development work would also be

comparatively less and minimal. Thus the

deduction on account of the two factors in respect

of plots in unauthorized layouts, would be only

about 20% plus 20% in all 40% as against 75% in

regard to DDA plots.

17. The “deduction for development” with

reference to prices of plots in authorized private

residential layouts may range between 50% to 65%

depending upon the standards and quality of the

layout.

18. The position with reference to industrial

layouts will be different. As the industrial plots will

be large (say of the size of one or two acres or

more as contrasted with the size of residential plots

measuring 100 sq. m to 200 sq m), and as there

will be very limited civic amenities and no

playgrounds, the area to be set apart for

development (for roads, parks, playgrounds and

civic amenities) will be far less; and the cost to be

incurred for development will also be marginally

less, with the result the deduction to be made from

the cost of an industrial plot may range only

between 45% to 55% as contrasted from 65% to

75% for residential plots.

19. If the acquired land is in a semi-developed

urban area, and not an undeveloped rural area, then

the deduction for development may be as much

less, that is, as little as 25% to 40%, as some basic

infrastructure will already be available. (Note: The

percentages mentioned above are tentative

standards and subject to proof to the contrary.

20. Therefore the deduction for the “development ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*189* MIDC LATUR

factor” to be made with reference to the price of a

small plot in a developed layout, to arrive at the

cost of undeveloped land, will be far more than the

deduction with reference to the price of a small

plot in an unauthorized private layout or an

industrial layout. It is also well known that the

development cost incurred by statutory agencies is

much higher than the cost incurred by private

developers, having regard to higher overheads and

expenditure.

21. Even among the layouts formed by DDA,

the percentage of land utilized for roads, civic

amenities, parks and playgrounds may vary with

reference to the nature of layout-whether it is

residential , residential- cum-commercial or

industrial; and even among residential layouts, the

percentage will differ having regard to the size of

the plots, width of the roads, extent of community

facilities, parks and playgrounds provided.

22. Some of the layouts formed by the statutory

development authorities may have large areas

earmarked for water/sewage treatment plants,

water tanks, electrical substations, etc. in addition

to the usual areas earmarked for roads, drains,

parks playgrounds and community/civic amenities.

The purpose of the aforesaid examples is only to

show that the “deduction for development” factor

is a variable percentage and the range of

percentage itself being very wide from 20% to

75%.”

Lal Chand’s case deals with acquisition of

lands by DDA under the Rohini Residential

Housing Scheme where 40% deduction was made

towards the land area to be utilized for laying

down of roads, drains etc. Further deduction of

35% of the value of the developed plot towards

cost of levelling the land, cost of providing roads,

underground drainage, laying down water lines,

electricity lines was made.”

47. He, therefore, contends that the impugned awards

are unsustainable and the Reference Courts have granted ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*190* MIDC LATUR

exorbitant rise without applying the three principles of deduction.

48. Shri Kumbhakoni then points out that common

awards have been delivered by the Reference Courts. He has

placed before us colour pictures to indicate the description of the

properties. He states that the impugned awards have to be

quashed and set aside as everything that was prohibited by

judicial pronouncements, has been done by the Reference Court.

It has blindly relied on earlier judgments, which should not have

been followed. It did not follow the Arm Chair Rule. It did not

follow the escalation principle and incorrectly followed the

reverse calculation principle which is dangerous. It relied upon

the latest sale instances after the cut-off date instead of taking

into account old sale instances. It has relied on sale instances of

small portions of lands calculated in square feet and did not

follow the sale instances of large parcels of land. It should have

taken into account the sale instances at Sr.Nos.2 and 3 which

could be closest to the escalation cost of the lands. The sale

instances only from village Harangul were taken into account

and not a single sale instance from Khandapur was referred to. It

relied on the sale instances of portions of land touching the road

and applied the rates universally to all the parcels of the land that ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*191* MIDC LATUR

were acquired as if they constituted a compact block.

49. By relying upon GM, ONGC (supra), the learned

Advocate General has canvassed that it is now settled position of

law that the methodology of taking an old sale deed of

comparable parcel of land and applying the escalation factor in

between 7.5% per annum to 10% per annum, is the safest mode

rather than considering a latest sale deed and indulging in reverse

calculation. He then relies upon Bhupal Singh (supra) to fortify

his contention.

50. The learned Advocate General has placed a

compilation of the sale deeds which were part of the record

before the Reference Court. He points out that the Reference

Court has referred to a road touching small plot under the sale

deed dated 05.03.1992, which was granted NA-44 status. He

cites an instance of PW-2, in LAR No.583/1999, who was the

purchaser, examined below Exhibit-34. He admitted that he had

purchased the land for the purpose of setting up a hotel. This

weighed on the mind of the LAR Court for computing

compensation. The law, that the purpose of the use of the land

cannot be taken into account and cannot be a consideration for

computing compensation, was completely overlooked. ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*192* MIDC LATUR

51. He then turns to the sale deeds hurriedly entered into

by some of the claimants, to canvass that these amount to

manufacturing evidence. Various sale deeds for smaller portions

of land/ plots touching the road were hurriedly entered into and

the cost of such lands was jacked up so as to create a picture that

the land was highly valuable. Cryptic sale deeds with short

description of conditions of sale were entered into for showing

transfer of title. He relies upon a sample N.A.44 order to support

his contention that such transformation/ change in user of land

was orchestrated.

ON VALUATION REPORTS

52. Insofar as the valuation reports are concerned, he

submits that there were in all three valuers i.e. Nandkumar S.

Pokalwar, Sunil Ghante Jain and Nandkumar Patil. Mr.Pokalwar

deposed that he had carried out inspection on 05.06.1997 in Gat

No.182. The deemed date of valuation was 18.11.1992 and the

date of tendering the valuation report is 10.08.2001. It was

mandatory for Mr.Pokalwar to be an “approved valuer for

agricultural land”. His enrollment in the institution of valuers is

dated 03.03.2001/ 25.06.2001. He was approved valuer for ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*193* MIDC LATUR

“immovable property other than agricultural lands/ plantations/

forest / mines/ quarries but including foundations/ soil machines/

structural engineering/ public health engineering and water

technology”. As such, apparently, Mr.Pokalwar had no

authorization for tendering a valuation report with regard to the

agricultural lands.

53. The learned Advocate General further submits that

Mr.Pokalwar is said to have inspected Block Nos.32, 237, 248,

231, 240, 239, 9, 25, 265 and various other lands in Khandapur

village on a single day 03.06.1997. These lands are about 35

Hectares i.e. admeasuring about 85 acres. He deposed that he

also visited lands/ plots under the sale instances and examined

this huge area of lands, for (a) inspection of quality of lands, (b)

facilities, (c) use of lands, (d) location of lands and (e)

development in the vicinity of these lands. This is humanly

impossible, is the contention of the learned Advocate General.

54. He adds that Mr.Pokalwar submitted his valuation

report after four years of the spot inspection, though he was not

an authorized valuer for agricultural lands. Moreover, when

confronted, Mr.Pokalwar stated in cross-examination that he had

taken down the rough notes of his visit. When called upon to ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*194* MIDC LATUR

produce the notes, he submitted that all his notes were destroyed

by pests. He also admitted that even the rough copies of the maps

were destroyed by pests. He has tried to cover up by saying that

the valuation report was prepared immediately and preserved in

the computer. He further admitted that all the sale instances he

has relied upon for the valuation, are NA plots and he has not

verified a single sale instance of an agricultural land. He further

admitted that he was not paid any fees by the claimants since

they assured him that he would get his fees from the

compensation amount that the claimants would receive. He also

admitted that he had not prepared the valuation on acre basis and

had relied upon square feet basis with regard to NA property

only. Then, he admitted that he did not carry out soil test while

determining that the quality of land was good. No test pits were

dug. Such test pits are mandatory. Valuation is made by keeping

in mind that the lands are good for construction and he

considered vicinity of districts like Thane, Mumbai, Aurangabad,

Pune, Kolhapur, etc.. He also admitted that the distance of spot

location was 10 kilometers from Latur at one location and 6

kilometers at another location, which is a mistake. He did not

refer to any list of developments since 1982. He does not have ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*195* MIDC LATUR

the acknowledgment of handing over the report to the claimants

in 2001.

55. The other valuer Mr.Nandkumar Patil led evidence

at Exhibit 47 in LAR No.202/1999 (First Appeal No.2470/2010).

In cross-examination, he surprisingly stated that it is not true that

without registration as a valuer, the valuation report would not be

valid. He admitted that he had not issued notice to the concerned

authorities before visiting the spot. He further admitted that

though he has maintained the record, he has not filed it in the

Court. He cannot give the rates that were calculated with regard

to the fruiting trees. He admitted that he never inspected the

analysis of soil and water. He did not mention the manner of

water sources being available to the claimants' land.

56. The third valuer Mr.Sunil Ghante Jain deposed at

Exhibit 51 in the same LAR proceedings. He admitted that he

relied on sale instances of smaller plots based on square feet

rating, mostly in Harangul village and four sale deeds from

Warwanti village. Not a single sale instance with regard to larger

portions of land measured in R or Acres or Hectares was relied

upon. He did not mention the preparation of the panchanama in

his report. He had prepared rough notes which he has not filed in ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*196* MIDC LATUR

the Court. He admitted that the sale deed dated 16.06.1993 was

of village Warwanti as regards the gavthan and not an

agricultural land. He further admitted that only one sale deed

Exhibit 30 pertaining to village Harangul was with regard to the

land adjacent to Latur-Barshi state highway. All the sale deeds

relied upon are with regard to NA plots and he further admitted

that the rates of NA plots are higher than agricultural lands. He

further admitted that he did not collect information as regards the

market price as per the ready reckoner available in the office of

the Sub Registrar.

57. The learned Advocate General then relied upon

Narayanlal Bansilal and others vs. State of Maharashtra and

others, 2012 (1) Mh.L.J. 642 and Special Land Acquisition

Officer and another vs. Sidappa Omanna Tumari and others,

1995 Suppl. (2) SCC 168.

58. In Narayanlal Bansilal (supra), paragraph 36 reads

as under :-

“36. As to Point No.D : Compensation of two

residences i.e. big bungalow and second bungalow

now need consideration. Landowners have solely

relied upon their expert. How to approach evidence

of said expert Shri Gandhi is also a moot question.

In AIR 1995 SC. 840 – (Special Land Acquisition

Officer v. Sri Siddappa Omanna Tumari):-

" 7. When the Collector makes the reference to ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*197* MIDC LATUR

the Court, he is enjoined by Section 19 to state the

grounds on which he had determined the amount of

compensation if the objection raised as to the

acceptance of award of the Collector under Section

11 by the claimant was as regards the amount of

compensation awarded for the land thereunder. The

Collector has to state the grounds on which he had

determined the amount of compensation where the

objection raised by the claimant in his application

for reference under Section 18 was as to

inadequacy of compensation allowed by the award

under Section 11, as required by sub-section (2) of

Section 18 itself.

Therefore, the legislative scheme contained in

Sections 12, 18 and 19 while on the one hand

entitles the claimant not to accept the award made

under Section 11 as to the amount of compensation

determined as payable for his acquired land and

seek a reference to the court for determination of

the amount of compensation payable for his land,

on the other hand requires him to make good

before the Court the objection raised by him as

regards the inadequacy of the amount of

compensation allowed for his land under the award

made under Section 11, with a view to enable the

Court to determine the amount of compensation

exceeding the amount of compensation allowed by

the award under Section 11, be it by reference to

the improbabilities inherent in the award itself or

on the evidence aliunde adduced by him to that

effect. That is why, the position of a claimant in a

reference before the Court, is considered to be that

of the plaintiff in a suit requiring him to discharge

the initial burden of proving that the amount of

compensation determined in the award under

Section 11 was inadequate, the same having not

been determined on the basis of relevant material

and by application of correct principles of

valuation, either with reference to the contents of

the award itself or with reference to other evidence

aliunde adduced before the Court. Therefore, if the

initial burden of proving the amount of

compensation allowed in the award of the

Collector was inadequate, is not discharged, the ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*198* MIDC LATUR

award of the Collector which is made final and

conclusive evidence under Section 12, as regards

matters contained therein will stand unaffected.

But if the claimant, succeeds in proving that the

amount determined under the award of the

Collector was inadequate, the burden of proving

the correctness of the award shifts on to the

Collector who has to adduce sufficient evidence in

that behalf to sustain such award. Hence, the Court

which is required to decide the reference made to it

under Section 18 of the Act, cannot determine the

amount of compensation payable to the claimant

for his land exceeding the amount determined in

the award of the Collector made under Section 11

for the same land, unless it gets over the finality

and conclusive evidentiary value attributed to it

under Section 12, by recording a finding on

consideration of relevant material therein that the

amount of compensation determined under the

award was inadequate for the reasons that weighed

with it.

15. It has become a matter of common occurrence

with the claimants who seek enhanced

compensation for their acquired lands from court

to produce the reports of valuation of their lands in

court purported to have been prepared by the

experts. No doubt, courts can act on such expert

evidence in determining the market value of the

acquired lands, but the court having regard to the

fact that experts will have prepared the valuation

reports in the court and will depose in support of

such reports, at the instance of the claimants, must

with care and caution examine such reports and

evidence given in support thereof. Whenever

valuation report made by an expert is produced in

court, the opinion on the value of the acquired land

given by such expert can be of no assistance in

determining the market value of such land, unless

such opinion is formed on relevant factual data or

material, which is also produced before the court

and proved to be genuine and reliable, as any other

evidence. Besides, if the method of valuation of

acquired land adopted by the expert in his report is

found to be not in consonance with the recognized ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*199* MIDC LATUR

methods of valuation of similar lands, then also,

the opinion expressed in his report and his

evidence can be of no real assistance to the court in

determining the market value of the acquired land.

Since the exercise which will have been done by

the expert in arriving at the market value of the

land in his report on the basis of factual data

bearing on such valuation, will be similar to that to

be undertaken by the court. In determining the

market value of the acquired land, it can no doubt

receive assistance from such report, if it is rightly

done and the data on which the report is based is

placed before the court and its authenticity is

established.

16. Therefore, when the valuation report of an

acquired land is made by an expert on the basis of

prices fetched or to be fetched by sale deeds or

agreements to sell relating to the very acquired

lands or the lands in the vicinity need arises for the

court to examine and be satisfied about the

authenticity of such documents and the truth of

their contents and the normal circumstances in

which they had come into existence and further the

correct method adopted in preparation of the

report, before acting on such report for determining

the market value of the acquired land. The opinion

expressed in the report that the author of the report

has made the valuation of the acquired lands on the

basis of his past experience of valuation of such

lands should never weigh with the court in the

matter of determination of market value of the

acquired lands, for such assertions by themselves

cannot be substituted for evidence on which it

ought to be based and the method or valuation

adaptable in such report.

17. Therefore, when a report of an expert is got

produced by a claimant before the court giving

market value of the acquired lands, the court may,

choose to act upon such report for determination of

the amount of compensation payable for the

acquired lands, if the data or the material on the

basis of which such report is based is produced

before the Court and the authenticity of the same is

made good and the method of valuation adopted ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:27 :::

*200* MIDC LATUR

therein is correct."

ON IMPUGNED AWARDS

59. The learned Advocate General referred to the

impugned awards delivered in First Appeal No.1233/2010. He

referred to the reasons assigned by the learned Reference Court

in paragraphs 31 to 37. Small portions as well as large portions

from different lands were grouped together by the Court while

delivering the impugned award. Casualness on the part of the

Reference Court is quite evident. Settled principles of law have

been discarded and the impugned award is in opposition to the

tenets of law.

60. The learned Advocate General then referred to First

Appeal No.2356/2009 and while criticizing the impugned award,

has referred to paragraphs 10, 11 and 12. In First Appeal

No.2102/2013, while assailing the impugned award, the learned

Advocate General has referred to paragraphs 33, 34 and 35.

JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE

61. The learned Advocate General submits that the

claimants in these cases are relying upon the judgment dated ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:28 :::

*201* MIDC LATUR

20.07.2015 delivered by the learned Single Judge in First Appeal

No.1066/2014 and a group of cases. Considering the pecuniary

jurisdiction, these cases were placed before the learned Single

Judge, who has dismissed all the First Appeals filed by the Latur

MIDC. The learned Advocate General referred to paragraphs 2 to

7 and submits that the Latur MIDC is to be blamed for not

putting forth all the factual aspects of these cases, as are being

canvassed before this Court, when the learned Single Judge took

up those appeals. Consequentially, the learned Single Judge, with

due respect, did not have the occasion to assign specific reasons

while dismissing the appeals as the legal propositions of law and

various factors being canvassed today, were not canvassed before

the learned Single Judge. He, therefore, relied upon the judgment

of the Honourable Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner,

Commercial Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota

vs. Shukla and Brothers, 2010 (4) SCC 785, to support his

contention that an unreasoned order need not be followed.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANTS

62. Shri Katneshwarkar, the learned Advocate

representing some of the original claimants, has led the ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:28 :::

*202* MIDC LATUR

submissions on behalf of colleague advocates representing all the

claimants. He submits that all the three villages are adjacent to

the Municipal Corporation Limits of Latur. The LAR Court

followed the belting system. It is not necessary that “road touch”

plots or lands will always fetch higher prices. In this context, he

refers to Union of India Vs. Bal Ram and another, (2010) 5 SCC

747 and Ali Mohammad Beigh and others vs. State of Jammu

and Kashmir, (2017) 4 SCC 717.

63. Reliance is placed upon paragraph 4 in Bal Ram

(supra), which reads as under :-

“4.The High Court indeed did not rely upon the

contiguity of the lands alone but it found that the

nature/ quality of the lands is by and large similar

to those lands considered in Satpal Case. If that is

the finding of the High Court, we do not think

there would be any justification to make any

distinction between lands which had been lying in

Palam and Shahbad Mohamadpur. Therefore, the

view taken by the High Court cannot be faulted

with. The High Court also found that it would be

unfair to discriminate between the landowners to

pay more to some and less to others when the

purpose of acquisition is same and lands are

identical and similar, though lying in different

villages.”

64. In Ali Mohammad Beigh (supra), reliance is placed

on paragraph Nos.11 to 14 which read as under :-

“11.As noted earlier, village Chandapora is situated ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:28 :::

*203* MIDC LATUR

adjacent to villages Bhagichandpora and

Pazwalpora; while so, there was no reason why the

Reference Court differentiated the land of the

appellants-land owners of the acquired land in

Chandapora land Reference No.15/2002 by

awarding lesser compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. On

a perusal of the judgment of the Reference Court in

Reference No.15 of 2002, it is seen that the

witnesses were examined by the appellants to

substantiate their case that the market rate of the

land in village Chandapora in the year 1998 was

about Rs.8,00,000/- per Kanal. Though the

Tehsildar of the area recommended Rs.2,50,000/-

per Kanal, the witnesses have stated that the

compensation fixed by Tehsildar was not reliable

and not based on any material. The appellants have

also produced a sale deed by one Mr. Bansilal

under which he sold a small strip of land

measuring 1360 sq. feet in the vicinity of the

acquired land for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. But

the Reference Court discarded the evidence of

witness Bansilal on the ground that under the sale

deed only a small area of land was sold and the

sale deed cannot be taken to be a representative

character of the entire land. In our view, the

Reference Court was not right in discarding the

said sale deed which was supported by oral

evidence of the witnesses, to substantiate their

claim that the market rate assessed by the Tehsildar

at Rs.2,50,000/- was not a fair compensation.

12. When the lands are more or less situated nearby

and when the acquired lands are identical and

similar and the acquisition is for the same purpose,

it would not be proper to discriminate between the

land owners unless there are strong reasons. In

Union of India vs. Bal Ram and another, (2010) 5

SCC 747, this Court held that if the purpose of

acquisition is same and when the lands are

identical and similar though lying in different

villages, there is no justification to make any

discrimination between the land owners to pay

more to some of the land owners and less

compensation to others. The same was the view

taken in Union of India vs. Harinder Pal Singh, ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:28 :::

*204* MIDC LATUR

(2005) 12 SCC 564, where this Court held as

under:-

“15. We have carefully considered the submissions

made on behalf of the respective parties and we see

no justification to interfere with the decision of the

Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High

Court which, in our view, took a pragmatic

approach in fixing the market value of the lands

forming the subject-matter of the acquisition

proceedings at a uniform rate. From the sketch

plan of the area in question, it appears to us that

while the lands in question are situated in five

different villages, they can be consolidated into

one single unit with little to choose between one

stretch of land and another. The entire area is in a

stage of development and the different villages are

capable of being developed in the same manner as

the lands comprised in Kala Ghanu Pur where the

market value of the acquired lands was fixed at a

uniform rate of Rs 40,000 per acre. The Division

Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court

discarded the belting method of valuation having

regard to the local circumstances and features and

no cogent ground has been made out to interfere

with the same.

16. In our view, in the absence of any

contemporaneous document, the market value of

the acquired lands of Village Kala Ghanu Pur

which were acquired at the same time as the lands

in the other five villages was correctly taken to be

a comparative unit for determination of the market

value of the lands comprising the lands forming the

subject-matter of the acquisition proceedings under

consideration…….”

13. When the lands are acquired at the same time and

for the same purpose that is for resettlement of Dal

dwellers, the lands situated in three different

villages namely, Chandapora, Bhagichandpora and

Pazwalpora, and since the land is similar land, it

would be unfair to discriminate between the land

owners and other references and the appellants

who are the land owners in Reference No.15 and

pay less that is Rs.2,50,000/- per Kanal to the

appellants and pay more to other land owners that ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:28 :::

*205* MIDC LATUR

is Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanal. Impugned judgments of

the High Court in CIA No. 211/2009 and Cross

Appeal No. 64/2011 are to be set aside by

enhancing the compensation to Rs.4,00,000 per

Kanal. As a sequel to this, the order passed in

review is also to be set aside.

14. In the result, the impugned judgments are set aside

and these appeals are allowed. It is held that the

appellants are at par with other land owners whose

lands were acquired in Bhagichandpora and

Pazwalpora in other references, and hence they are

also entitled to enhanced compensation of

Rs.4,00,000/- per Kanal with 15% solatium

(Jabirana) and all other statutory benefits. No

costs.”

65. Shri Katneshwarkar has then referred to the awards

and the documents in First Appeal Nos.1533/2013 and

1534/2013. He does not dispute the date of the notification

24.04.1992, published in the official Gazette on 07.05.1992 and

the notice published under Section 32(2) on 04.03.1993.

66. He points out that a notification was published in the

village on 18.11.1992 and 23.02.1996. He refers to the award

dated 03.01.1998 and the opening page thereunder for the above

mentioned dates. He has then drawn our attention to the details

as regards the lands, their gat numbers and their distances. He

has also pointed out the lands on the south side of the railway

line and those at villages Harangul Bk., Khandapur and

Chincholi Rao Wadi. He has also referred to the details on ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:28 :::

*206* MIDC LATUR

internal page Nos.9, 10,11 and 12, wherein the LAR Court has

referred to the documentary evidence put forth by the Acquiring

Body. He has then pointed out those sale instances which have

been rejected by the LAR Courts.

We find that those sale instances pertaining to the

years 1989-90, 1991 and 1992, have been rejected by the LAR

Courts.

67. Shri Katneshwarkar then referred to the paper book

in First Appeal No.1481/2010. While referring to paragraph 2 of

the Written Statement, he submitted that the following marked

portion is false, viz. “the LAO has published the notification

under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and also called

objection under Section 5 of the Land Acquisition Act from the

interested persons, but no objection has been filed before the

concerned LAO. Even after joint measurement and after giving

opportunity to him/ them. The LAO has passed an award under

Section 11 of the LA Act after observing all the formalities, the

land under acquisition was agricultural land and, therefore, the

said land has been treated as agricultural land by the LAO for

determination of compensation. The LAO has also issued the

notices to the interested person under Section 9(1)(2) of the LA ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:28 :::

*207* MIDC LATUR

Act and called the claim of the concerned persons along with

documentary evidence in respect of market price of the acquired

land. Some of the claimants have filed their statement of claim

under Section 1(2) of the LA Act. The LAO has also considered

the statement of claim filed by the interested persons at the time

of awarding to the compensation to the acquired land.”

68. He then referred to paragraphs 5 to 17 of the

evidence adduced by the claimant and paragraphs 1 to 3 of his

cross-examination. According to him, the claimants have led

extensive oral evidence and have produced sale instances to

support their claim. Chart C-54 contains a list of sale instances.

He, therefore, contends that old sale instances and the new sale

instances can be taken into account while deciding the market

value of the land. Both the patterns of addition and deletion

method can be utilized for deciding the market value.

69. Insofar as 23 sale instances cited by the appellant/

MIDC, he submits that though they were certified true copies,

they were required to be proved as per the Evidence Act. The

MIDC did not lead any evidence and did not prove the contents

of 23 sale instances. No witness on behalf of the MIDC was

produced before the Reference Court. ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:28 :::

*208* MIDC LATUR

70. Shri Katneshwarkar produced two compilations of

case law. According to him, the guiding principles for dealing

with reference cases were laid down in paragraphs 3, 4 (1 to 17),

7, 8, 11 and 12 in Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special LAO,

Poona and another, (1988) 3 SCC 751, which read as under :-

“3.Before tackling the problem of valuation of the

land under acquisition it is necessary to make some

general observations. The compulsion to do so has

arisen as the Trial Court has virtually treated the

award rendered by the Land Acquisition officer as

a judgment under appeal and has evinced

unawareness of the methodology for valuation to

some extent. The true position therefore requires to

be capsulized.

4.The following factors must be etched on the mental

screen:

(1) A reference under Section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award

and the Court cannot take into account the material

relied upon by the Land Acquisition officer in his

Award unless the same material is produced and

proved before the Court.

(2) So also the Award of the Land Acquisition

officer is not to be treated as a judgment of the trial

Court open or exposed to challenge before the

Court hearing the Reference. It is merely an offer

made by the Land Acquisition officer and the

material utilised by him for making his valuation

cannot be utilised by the Court unless produced

and proved before it. It is not the function of the

Court to suit in appeal against the Award, approve

or disapprove its reasoning, or correct its error or

affirm, modify or reverse the conclusion reached

by the Land Acquisition officer, as if it were an

appellate court.

(3) The Court has to treat the reference as an

original proceeding before it and determine the

market value afresh on the basis of the material

produced before it. ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:28 :::

*209* MIDC LATUR

(4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff

who has to show that the price offered for his land

in the award is inadequate on the basis of the

materials produced in the Court. Of course the

materials placed and proved by the other side can

also be taken into account for this purpose.

(5) The market value of land under acquisition has

to be determined as on the crucial date of

publication of the notification under sec. 4 of the

Land Acquisition Act (dates of Notifications under

secs. 6 and 9 are irrelevant).

(6) The determination has to be made standing on

the date line of valuation (date of publication of

notification under sec. 4) as if the valuer is a

hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land

from the open market and is prepared to pay a

reasonable price as on that day. It has also to be

assumed that the vendor is willing to sell the land

at a reasonable price.

(7) In doing so by the instances method, the Court

has to correlate the market value reflected in the

most comparable instance which provides the

index of market value.

(8) Only genuine instances have to be taken into

account. (Some times instances are rigged up in

anticipation of Acquisition of land).

(9) Even post notification instances can be taken

into account (1) if they are very proximate,(2)

genuine and (3) the acquisition itself has not

motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on

account of the resultant improvement in

development prospects.

(l0) The most comparable instances out of the

genuine instances have to be identified on the

following considerations:

(i) proximity from time angle,

(ii) proximity from situation angle.

(11) Having identified the instances which provide

the index of market value the price reflected

therein may be taken as the norm and the market

value of the land under acquisition may be deduced

by making suitable adjustments for the plus and

minus factors vis-a-vis land under acquisition by

placing the two in juxtaposition. ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:28 :::

*210* MIDC LATUR

(12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may

be drawn for this purpose and the relevant factors

may be evaluated in terms of price variation as a

prudent purchaser would do.

(13) The market value of the land under acquisition

has there after to be deduced by loading the price

reflected in the instance taken as norm for plus

factors and unloading it for minus factors.

(14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13)

has to be undertaken in a common sense manner as

a prudent man of the world of business would do.

We may illustrate some such illustrative (not

exhaustive) factors:

Plus factors Minus factors

1. smallness of size. 1. largeness of area.

2. proximity to a road. 2. situation in the

interior at a distances from the

Road.

3. frontage on a road. 3. narrow strip of land

with very small frontage

compared to death.

4. nearness to developed area. 4. lower level

requiring the depressed

portion to be filled up.

5. regular shape. 5. remoteness from

developed locality.

6. level vis-a-vis land under acquisition.

6. some special

disadvantageous factor which

would deter a purchaser.

7. special value for an owner

of an adjoining property to

whom it may have some

very special advantage.

(15) The evaluation of these factors of course

depends on the facts of each case. There cannot be

any hard and fast or rigid rule. Common sense is

the best and most reliable guide. For instance, take

the factor regarding the size. A building plot of

land say 500 to 1000 sq. yds cannot be compared

with a large tract or block of land of say l000 sq.

yds or more. Firstly while a smaller plot is within ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:28 :::

*211* MIDC LATUR

the reach of many, a large block of land will have

to be developed by preparing a lay out, carving out

roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller

plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the

invested money will be blocked up) and the

hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be

discounted by making a deduction by way of an

allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approx.

between 20% to 50% to account for land required

to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting

out small plots. The discounting will to some

extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or

urban area, whether building activity is picking up,

and whether waiting period during which the

capital of the entrepreneur would be looked up,

will be longer or shorter and the attendant hazards.

(16) Every case must be dealt with on its own facts

pattern bearing in mind all these factors as a

prudent purchaser of land in which position the

Judge must place himself.

(17) These are general guidelines to be applied

with understanding informed with common sense.”

“7.The appellant's land, which was agricultural land

albeit with future potential for development as

building site, was situated far far in the interior in

the midst of blocks of undeveloped land. The

formula for evaluation involved taking of three

steps:

(1) The High Court formed the opinion that

allowance for largeness of block deserved to be

made at 25% instead of 20% as done by the Trial

Court.

(2) The High Court formed the opinion that the

development would take about 12 years to reach

the appellant's land. On these premises the High

Court formed the opinion that the land of the

appellant could be valued at Rs.7000 per acre as a

block.

(3) The High Court directed that the market value

so ascertained should be further depressed to

account for the factor as regards the waiting period

of 12 years which was the estimated period for

development reaching the appellant's land. The ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:28 :::

*212* MIDC LATUR

'present value' of the land was accordingly de-

duced by depressing the valuation of Rs.7000 per

acre by reference to Miram's Tables on the basis of

discount rate of 5% per annum to account for the

factor that approximately 12 years would elapse

before development could reach the appellant's

land.

That is how the total compensation payable to the

appellant for the block of land admeasuring 13

acres 7 gunthas was determined at Rs.63,846

which works out at approximately Rs.4,845.87 per

acre.

8.The valuation made by the High Court has been

faulted on three A grounds:

(1) The High Court should not have made a

deduction of 25% in place of deduction made by

the Trial Court at 20% to account for the factor

pertaining to the largeness of the block of land

under acquisition.

(2) The High Court had grossly undervalued the

land in determining the market value of the

appellants' land at Rs.7,000 per acre.

(3) There was no warrant for pushing down or

depressing the market value of land as determined

by the Trial Court in order to deduce the 'present

value' by reference to Miram's Tables to account

for the factor as regards the estimated time lag for

development reaching the block of land in question

which was situated in the interior. Besides, the time

lag of 12 years as estimated by the High Court was

excessive and unrealistic.

The first two grounds are devoid of merit. It is

common knowledge that when a large block of

land is required to be valued, appropriate deduction

has to be made for setting aside land for carving

out roads, leaving open spaces, and plotting out

smaller plots suitable for construction of buildings.

The extent of the area required to be set apart in

this connection has to be assessed by the Court

having regard to shape, size and situation of the

concerned block of land etc. There cannot be any

hard and fast rule as to how much deduction

should be made to account for this factor. It is ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:28 :::

*213* MIDC LATUR

essentially a question of fact depending on the

facts and circumstances of each case. It does not

involve drawing upon any principle of law. It

cannot be said that the High Court has committed

any error in forming the opinion that having regard

to the facts and circumstances of the case 25%

deduction was required to be made in this

connection. The High Court cannot be faulted on

this score.”

“11.Turning now to the third ground, it appears that the

appellant's grievance is justified. The grievance is

that there was no warrant for making any further

deduction once the land was valued at Rs.7,000 as

against the valuation of the best parcel of land at

Rs.20,000 which was made precisely to account

for the factor pertaining to its situation in the

interior. There was therefore no warrant for

ascertaining the present value of Rs.7,000 as if

Rs.7,000 would be fetched after 12 years. Now the

parcel of land admeasuring 13 acres 7 gunthas

comprised in Survey No. 85 which was situated

very much in the interior was valued by the Trial

Court at Rs. 10,866 per acre (less 20% to account

for roads etc.). This parcel of land was valued at

Rs.7,000 per acre by the High Court. The High

Court had valued the land with the best situation

on the Ganeshkhand Road at Rs.20,000 per acre.

As against this the appellant's land was valued at

mere Rs.7,000 per acre which reflected an

unloading by Rs.13,000 per acre which works out

at 65%. This pushing down was made to account

for its situation in the interior on the premise that

development would take about 12 years to reach

the land under acquisition. If the appellant's land

just adjoined the land valued at Rs.20,000 per acre

it would have been valued at the same figure of

Rs.20,000. It has been valued at Rs.7,000 per acre

precisely because it is so situated that development

would reach the appellant's land after 12 years as

estimated by the High Court. But after 12 years it

would become land adjoining to developed area

and not land which could be treated as in the

interior. Therefore, if present value was to be ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:28 :::

*214* MIDC LATUR

ascertained it should be ascertained on the basis of

present value of land which would fetch Rs.20,000

per acre after 12 years and not present value of

land which would fetch Rs.7.000 per acre after 12

years. In fact present value of Rs.20,000 payable at

the end of 12 years at 8% would work out at

Rs.6942 (.3971 x 20,000 = 6942)1. The High Court

was therefore right in valuing the land in interior at

Rs.7,000 per acre but wrong in directing that

present value of Rs.7,000 payable after 12 years

should be ascertained. The last ground is thus well

founded .

12.In the result appellant must be awarded

compensation at Rs.7,000 per acre subject to

deduction or allowance of 25% to account for land

required to be set apart for roads, open spaces etc.

In other words appellant will be entitled to be paid

compensation for 13 acres 7 gunthas comprised in

Survey No. 85 at Rs.5,250 per acre (Rs.7,000 less

25% i.e. less 1750=Rs.5,250) in place of the lesser

sum awarded by the High Court. Appeal must be

partly allowed to this extent accordingly.”

(Emphasis supplied)

71. Shri Katneshwarkar further relied on Mehrawal

Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot vs. State of Punjab and

others, (2012) 5 SCC 432. Paragraphs 14 to 19 read as under :-

“14. As pointed out above, the Reference Court failed

to take note of the highest exemplar, namely, the

sale transaction under Ext.A-61 dated 22.07.1977.

In this regard, it is useful to refer the decision of

this Court in M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur,

vs. Collector of Madras, (1969) 1 MLJ 45 (SC). In

this case, this Court has held thus:

“… where sale deeds pertaining to different

transactions are relied on behalf of the

Government, that representing the highest value

should be preferred to the rest unless there are

strong circumstances justifying a different course.

In any case we see no reason why an average of ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:28 :::

*215* MIDC LATUR

two sale deeds should have been taken in this

case.”

15. In State of Punjab and Another vs. Hansraj (Dead)

by LRS. Sohan Singh and Others, (1994) 5 SCC

734, this Court has held that method of working

out the ‘average price’ paid under different sale

transactions is not proper and that one should not

have, ordinarily recourse to such method. This

Court further held that the bona fide sale

transactions proximate to the point of acquisition

of the lands situated in the neighbourhood of the

acquired lands are the real basis to determine the

market value.

16.This Court in Anjani Molu Dessai v. State of Goa,

(2010) 13 SCC 710, after relying upon the earlier

decisions of this Court in M. Vijayalakshmamma

Rao Bahadur (supra) and Hans Raj (supra) held in

para 20 as under:

“20. The legal position is that even where

there are several exemplars with reference to

similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars,

which is a bona fide transaction, will be

considered.”

Again, in para 23, it was held that “the

averaging of the prices under the two sale deeds

was not justified.”

17.It is clear that when there are several exemplars

with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule

that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied,

that it is a bona fide transaction has to be

considered and accepted. When the land is being

compulsorily taken away from a person, he is

entitled to the highest value which similar land in

the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide

transaction entered into between a willing

purchaser and a willing seller near about the time

of the acquisition. In our view, it seems to be only

fair that where sale deeds pertaining to different

transactions are relied on behalf of the

Government, the transaction representing the

highest value should be preferred to the rest unless

there are strong circumstances justifying a different

course. It is not desirable to take an average of

various sale deeds placed before the authority/court ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:28 :::

*216* MIDC LATUR

for fixing fair compensation.

18.Based on the above principles, the market value as

per Ext.A-61 dated 22.07.1977 was Rs.

1,39,130.43 per acre (approx. Rs.1.40 lakhs per

acre). The said sale deed was two and a half years

prior in time than Section 4(1) notification dated

22.12.1979. There is no reason to eschew the

above sale transaction. It is also pointed out that

the lands covered under Ext.A-61 are nearer to the

lands of the appellants under acquisition.

19.This Court has time and again granted 10% to 15%

increase per annum. In Ranjit Singh vs. Union

Territory of Chandigarh, (1992) 3 SCC 659, this

Court applied the rule of 10% yearly increase for

award of higher compensation. In Delhi

Development Authority vs. Bali Ram Sharma,

(2004) 6 SCC 533, this Court considered a batch of

appeals and applied the rule of annual increase for

grant of higher compensation. In ONGC Ltd. vs.

Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (2008) 14 SCC 745,

this Court held that where the acquired land is in

urban/semi-urban areas, increase can be to the tune

of 10% to 15% per annum and if the acquired land

is situated in rural areas, increase can be between

5% to 7.5% per annum. In Union of India vs.

Harpat Singh, (2009) 14 SCC 375, this Court

applied the rule of 10% increase per annum.”

(Emphasis supplied)

72. He has then relied on paragraphs 4 to 15 of Atma

Singh (Dead) through L.Rs. and others vs. State of Haryana and

another, (2008) 2 SCC 568, which read as under :-

“4. In order to determine the compensation which the

tenure- holders are entitled to get for their land

which has been acquired, the main question to be

considered is what is the market value of the land.

Section 23(1) of the Act lays down what the Court

has to take into consideration while Section 24 lays

down what the Court shall not take into ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:28 :::

*217* MIDC LATUR

consideration and have to be neglected. The main

object of the enquiry before the Court is to

determine the market value of the land acquired.

The expression 'market value' has been subject-

matter of consideration by this Court in several

cases. The market value is the price that a willing

purchaser would pay to a willing seller for the

property having due regard to its existing condition

with all its existing advantages and its potential

possibilities when led out in most advantageous

manner excluding any advantage due to carrying

out of the scheme for which the property is

compulsorily acquired. In considering market

value disinclination of the vendor to part with his

land and the urgent necessity of the purchaser to

buy should be disregarded. The guiding star would

be the conduct of hypothetical willing vendor who

would offer the land and a purchaser in normal

human conduct would be willing to buy as a

prudent man in normal market conditions but not

an anxious dealing at arms length nor facade of

sale nor fictitious sale brought about in quick

succession or otherwise to inflate the market value.

The determination of market value is the prediction

of an economic event viz., a price outcome of

hypothetical sale expressed in terms of

probabilities. See Kamta Prasad Singh v. State of

Bihar, AIR 1976 SC 2219; Prithvi Raj Taneja v.

State of M.P., AIR 1977 SC 1560; Administrator

General of W.B. v. Collector, Varanasi, AIR 1988

SC 943 and Periyar Pareekanni Rubbers Ltd. v.

State of Kerala, AIR 1990 SC 2192.

5. For ascertaining the market value of the land, the

potentiality of the acquired land should also be

taken into consideration. Potentiality means

capacity or possibility for changing or developing

into state of actuality. It is well settled that market

value of a property has to be determined having

due regard to its existing condition with all its

existing advantages and its potential possibility

when led out in its most advantageous manner. The

question whether a land has potential value or not,

is primarily one of fact depending upon its

condition, situation, user to which it is put or is ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:28 :::

*218* MIDC LATUR

reasonably capable of being put and proximity to

residential, commercial or industrial areas or

institutions. The existing amenities like, water,

electricity, possibility of their further extension,

whether near about Town is developing or has

prospect of development have to be taken into

consideration. See Collector Raigarh v. Dr.Hari

Singh Thakur, AIR 1979 SC 472, Raghubans

Narain Singh v. U.P. Govt., AIR 1969 SC 465 and

Administrator General, W.B. v. Collector, Varanasi,

AIR 1988 SC 943. It has been held in Kaushalya

Devi v. L.A.O. Aurangabad, AIR 1984 SC 892 and

Suresh Kumar v. T.I. Trust, AIR 1980 SC 1222 that

failing to consider potential value of the acquired

land is an error of principle.

6. As mentioned earlier, the learned Additional

District Judge had awarded compensation at a flat

rate of Rs.43,000/- per acre by placing reliance on

Ex. R-6 and R-7, two instances of sale of village

Chhapra. After taking an average of these two sale

transactions, an addition of 25% was made while

fixing the market value of the land. The High

Court held that these two sale deeds were of

31.12.1980, while in the instant case, the

notification under Section 4 of the Act was

published much later on 9.2.1983. That apart,

Ex.R-6 and R-7 were mutation orders and the

corresponding sale deeds had not been brought on

the record. In fact, the learned Additional District

Judge, in the earlier part of the judgment, had

himself discarded Ex. R-6 and R-7 as they were

mutation orders and were inadmissible in evidence.

The High Court, therefore, rightly held that no

reliance could be placed upon Ex.R-6 and R-7 for

determining the market value of the land.

7. The claimant-appellants (landowners) had filed

copies of four sale deeds which are Exs.P-7, P-8,

P-9 and P-10. In fact, Ex. P-7 is a copy of a sale

deed by which Laxman Singh bought some land in

village Chhapra on 28.7.1982, which itself became

subject matter of acquisition. Laxman Singh had

deposed that he had bought the land for

construction of shops. All these four sale deeds

related to sale transactions prior to the issuance of ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:28 :::

*219* MIDC LATUR

the notification under Section 4 of the Act on

9.2.1983. The High Court excluded Ex.P-8 from

consideration as it related to a very small piece of

land measuring 19 marlas only. The average price

of the three sale deeds viz. Ex. P-7, P- 9 and P-10

came to little more than Rs.1,20,000/- per acre.

Apart from these three sale deeds, no other

exemplars were filed either by the State of Haryana

or by the landowners. The High Court accepted the

price exhibited by the aforesaid three sale

transactions which came to little more than

Rs.1,20,000/- per acre. It thus recorded a finding

that the market value of the land was Rs.1,20,000/-

per acre. In our opinion, there being no other

documentary evidence, the view taken by the High

Court that the market value of the land was

Rs.1,20,000/- per acre is perfectly correct and calls

for no interference.

8. Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel for

the sugar mill has submitted that the exemplars

filed by the appellants were of very small pieces of

land and, therefore, they are not safe guide to

determine the market value of the land. It may be

mentioned here that while determining the market

value, the potentiality of the land acquired has also

to be taken into consideration. The appellants have

led evidence to show that the acquired land had the

potentiality to be used for commercial, industrial

and residential purposes. PW.1 Rakesh Kumar had

prepared a site plan which showed that the

acquired land was adjacent to the abadi of

Shahabad and abutted the Shahabad-Ladwa Road.

The site plan also shows that there existed rice

shellers, cold storage, shops, godowns, a college

and houses etc. on both sides of Shahabad-Ladwa

Road. PW.2 Baldev Singh was Patwari of village

Chhapra in the year 1983. He deposed that all the

four villages viz. Kankar Shahbad, Chhapra,

Jandheri and Jhambara are adjacent to each other

and the acquired land abutted the Shahabad-

Ladwa Road. He further deposed that the acquired

land was 2 kilometer from G.T. Road and there

were buildings, godowns, a cinema hall, factories

on both sides of the Shahabad-Ladwa Road. ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:28 :::

*220* MIDC LATUR

Therefore, there can be no manner of doubt that the

acquired land had the potentiality for being used

for commercial, industrial and residential purposes

and there was fair possibility of increase in its

market value in the near future. Therefore, the fact

that the exemplars filed by the appellants were of

the small pieces of land could not be a ground to

discard them specially when exemplars of large

pieces of land were not available. They could,

therefore, be used as a safe guide for determining

the market value of the land.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants has seriously

challenged the finding of the High Court that the

market value of the land determined on the basis of

the exemplars filed by the parties should be

reduced by one-third on account of the fact that the

exemplars relied upon for ascertaining the market

value related to sale of small pieces of land.

According to Shri M.L. Verma, learned senior

counsel for the appellants, there is no uniform

principle that if a large area has been acquired and

the exemplars are of small pieces of land, the

market value exhibited by the exemplars must

necessarily be reduced by one- third. Shri Verma

has placed strong reliance on Bhagwathula

Samanna v. Special Tehsildar and Land Acquisition

Officer, (1991) 4 SCC 506, wherein it was held as

under :-

"In fixing the market value of a large

property on the basis of a sale transaction for

smaller property, generally a deduction is given

taking into consideration the expenses required for

development of the larger tract to make smaller

plots within that area in order to compare with the

small plots dealt with under the sale transaction.

However, in applying this principle of deduction it

is necessary to consider all relevant facts. It is not

the extent of the area covered under the acquisition

which is the only relevant factor. If smaller area

within the large tract is already developed and

situated in an advantageous position suitable for

building purposes and have all amenities such as

roads, drainage, electricity, communications etc.

then the principle of deduction simply for the ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:28 :::

*221* MIDC LATUR

reason that it is part of the large tract acquired, may

not be justified.

In the present cases the lands covered by the

acquisition are located by the side of the National

Highway and the Southern Railway Staff Quarters

with the Town Planning Trust road on the north.

The neighbouring areas are already developed ones

and houses have been constructed, and the land has

potential value for being used as building sites.

Having found that the land is to be valued only as

building sites and having stated the advantageous

position in which the land in question lies though

forming part of the larger area, the High Court

should not have applied the principles of

deduction. It is not in every case that such

deduction is to be allowed. Therefore, the High

Court erred in making a deduction of one third of

the value of the comparable sale and thus reducing

the fair market value of land from Rs. 10 per sq.

yard to Rs.6.50 per sq. yard."

10.Shri Verma has also referred to Kasturi v. State of

Haryana, (2003) 1 SCC 354, wherein it was

observed that in cases of those land where there are

certain advantages by virtue of the developed area

around, it may help in reducing the percentage of

cut to be applied, as the development charges

required may be less on that account. There may be

various factual factors which may have to be taken

into consideration while applying the cut in

payment of compensation towards development

charges, may be in some cases it is more than 1/3rd

and in some cases less than 1/3rd. Therefore, in

this case taking into consideration the potentiality

of the acquired land for construction of residential

and commercial buildings, the deduction made was

only 20%.

11. Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel for

the sugar mill has, on the other hand, strenuously

urged that the evidence of market value shown by

sale of small plots is not a safe guide in valuing

large areas of land and the prices fetched for small

plots cannot be directly adopted in valuing large

extent of land as has been acquired in the present ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:28 :::

*222* MIDC LATUR

case. He has thus contended that a deduction of

30% had rightly been made by the High Court on

account of acquisition of a large area. In support of

his contention, Shri Dwivedi has placed reliance

upon several decisions of this Court. In order to

appreciate the principle laid down therein, it will

be useful to refer to them in some detail. In

Administrator General of W.B. v. Collector,

Varanasi, AIR 1988 SC 943, it was held as follows

in para 6 of the reports:-

"The principle requires that prices fetched

for small developed plots cannot directly be

adopted in valuing large extents. However, if it is

shown that the large extent to be valued does admit

of and is ripe for use for building purposes; that

building lots that could be laid out on the land

would be good selling propositions and that

valuation on the basis of the method of a

hypothetical lay out could with justification be

adopted, then in valuing such small laid out sites

the valuation indicated by sale of comparable small

sites in the area at or about the time of the

notification would be relevant. In such a case,

necessary deductions for the extent of land

required for the formation of roads and other civic

amenities; expenses of development of the sites by

laying out roads, drains, sewers, water and

electricity lines, and the interest on the outlays for

the period of deferment of the realisation of the

prices; the profits on the venture etc. are to be

made."

12.In Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land

Acquisition Officer, AIR 1988 SC 1652 it was held

as follows in para 4 (15) of the reports:

"4.(15) ….. Firstly while a smaller plot is within

the reach of many, a large block of land will have

to be developed by preparing a lay out, carving out

roads, leaving open space, plotting out smaller

plots, waiting for purchasers (meanwhile the

invested money will be blocked up) and the

hazards of an entrepreneur. The factor can be

discounted by making a deduction by way of an

allowance at an appropriate rate ranging approx, ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:28 :::

*223* MIDC LATUR

between 20% to 50% to account for land required

to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting

out small plots. The discounting will to some

extent also depend on whether it is a rural area or

urban area, whether building activity is picking up,

and whether waiting period during which the

capital of the entrepreneur would be locked up,

will be longer or shorter and the attendant

hazards"."

13.Shri Dwivedi has also referred to Basant Kumar v.

Union of India, (1996) 11 SCC 542, K.Vasundara

Devi v. Revenue Divisional Officer (LAO), (1995)

5 SCC 426, and H.P. Housing Board v. Bharat S.

Negi, (2004) 2 SCC 184. In the first cited case

land was acquired for planned development of

Delhi and in the other two cases for Housing

Boards and a deduction of 33% was applied.

14. The reasons given for the principle that price

fetched for small plots cannot form safe basis for

valuation of large tracks of land, according to cases

referred to above, are that substantial area is used

for development of sites like laying out roads,

drains, sewers, water and electricity lines and other

civic amenities. Expenses are also incurred in

providing these basic amenities. That apart it takes

considerable period in carving out the roads

making sewers and drains and waiting for the

purchasers. Meanwhile the invested money is

blocked up and the return on the investment flows

after a considerable period of time. In order to

make up for the area of land which is used in

providing civic amenities and the waiting period

during which the capital of the entrepreneur gets

locked up a deduction from 20% onward,

depending upon the facts of each case, is made.

15. The question to be considered is whether in the

present case those factors exist which warrant a

deduction by way of allowance from the price

exhibited by the exemplars of small plots which

have been filed by the parties. The land has not

been acquired for a Housing Colony or

Government Office or an Institution. The land has

been acquired for setting up a sugar factory. The ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:28 :::

*224* MIDC LATUR

factory would produce goods worth many crores in

a year. A sugar factory apart from producing sugar

also produces many by-product in the same

process. One of the by-products is molasses, which

is produced in huge quantity. Earlier, it had no

utility and its disposal used to be a big problem.

But now molasses is used for production of alcohol

and ethanol which yield lot of revenue. Another

by-product begasse is now used for generation of

power and press mud is utilized in manure.

Therefore, the profit from a sugar factory is

substantial. Moreover, it is not confined to one year

but will accrue every year so long as the factory

runs. A housing board does not run on business

lines. Once plots are carved out after acquisition of

land and are sold to public, there is no scope for

earning any money in future. An industry

established on acquired land, if run efficiently,

earns money or makes profit every year. The return

from the land acquired for the purpose of Housing

Colony, or Offices, or Institution cannot even

remotely be compared with the land which has

been acquired for the purpose of setting up a

factory or industry. After all the factory cannot be

set up without land and if such land is giving

substantial return, there is no justification for

making any deduction from the price exhibited by

the exemplars even if they are of small plots. It is

possible that a part of the acquired land might be

used for construction of residential colony for the

staff working in the factory. Nevertheless where

the remaining part of the acquired land is

contributing to production of goods yielding good

profit, it would not be proper to make a deduction

in the price of land shown by the exemplars of

small plots as the reasons for doing so assigned in

various decisions of this Court are not applicable in

the case under consideration.”

73. While referring to the second compilation of the

case law, Shri Katneshwarkar had read out paragraphs 3, 4, 13, ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:28 :::

*225* MIDC LATUR

16, 18, 19 and 22 to 28 in Nelson Fernandes and others vs.

SLAO, South Goa and others, (2007) 9 SCC 447 on the issue of

of deduction in large tracts of land. It would be apposite to

reproduce these paragraphs as under :-

“3.In the above case, notification under Section 4 of

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter called

the 'Act' for short) was published by the Special

Land Acquisition Officer South Goa for acquisition

of land for construction of new BG line for the

Konkan Railways. The notification was published

in the local dailies on 5th and 6th August, 1994.

Under Section 6 of the Act a declaration stating the

government's intention to acquire the land for the

purpose of construction of new broad gauge line of

the Konkan Railways between Roha and

Mangalore was made on 09.11.1994. An award

was passed by the Special Land Acquisition

Officer granting compensation to the appellant @

Rs.4/- per sq. metre and Rs.59,192/- for trees

standing on the said land. The appellant on

06.12.1996 made an application before the Land

Acquisition Officer to refer the matter for

determination of compensation under Section 18 of

the Act and claimed a sum of Rs.89,06,250/- for

the acquired land and Rs.71,000/- for the trees

standing thereon. Reference under Section 18 was

made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to

District and Sessions Judge on 28.02.1996 and

reference under Section 19 of the Act was made by

the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Margao.

Evidence was adduced by the appellant - Mr.

Nelson Fernandes before the Addl. District Judge.

Two sale deeds dated 13.12.1993 are annexed and

marked as Annexure-P5. Evidence was adduced by

Government Approved Valuer - Pratima Kumar on

the valuation report submitted by her before the

Addl. District Judge, Margao on 15.12.2000.

Evidence was adduced by Bartoleuma Gama on

the sale of land by him @ Rs. 449/- per sq. metre

by sale deed being Ex.AW1/B was annexed and ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:28 :::

*226* MIDC LATUR

marked as Annexure-P7.

4.The Addl. District Judge passed an award

increasing the rate of compensation from Rs. 4/-

per sq. metre to Rs.192/- per sq. metre, but did not

give any compensation for the trees standing on the

said land. First Appeal Nos. 66 and 75 of 2002

were preferred by both the appellants and the

respondents before the High Court against the

judgment and award dated 29.08.2001 of the

learned District Judge.”

“13.Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel

appearing for the claimants submitted that the

Division Bench was under the obligation to satisfy

the conditions imposed under Section 23 of the Act

for the purpose of determining the amount of

compensation to be awarded to the appellants and

that the Court is bound and obliged to ensure that

its judgment is in conformity with the provisions of

the statute. He further submitted that Court cannot

reject the opinion of an expert and substitute its

own opinion in place instead of the same.

Likewise, the Court has committed an error in

regard to the rate of compensation to be awarded

for acquisition of land after rejecting all the

evidence on record including the opinion of expert.

It is also submitted that Court cannot fix separate

rate of compensation for similarly placed lands and

that the Court has to consider the sale of land in the

locality and the facilities available thereon.”

“16.Mr. Atul Y. Chitale, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.2 - Konkan Railways submitted that

the land acquired by the State Government for

KRCL project in question is for public purpose and

not for any commercial exploitation and for

construction of new broad gauge line for Konkan

Railway adjacent to the land already acquired for

the same purpose earlier. He further submitted that

the acquired land is 11,875 sq. metres, hilly area,

about 30 metres from the road level and is

undeveloped land as most of the area is a low lying

area and that the topography of the acquired land

in question are such that a major part of the land is ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:28 :::

*227* MIDC LATUR

of Bharad type with fess paddy fields cultivated for

both the seasons, part of the land is under coconut

cultivation and some portion is under water and to

develop the land would be expensive, as the land

would require to be filled up and then developed.

According to learned counsel, the Land

Acquisition Officer, in his award, took into

consideration the following in fixing the rates:

1) prevailing conditions of the land;

2) rates awarded recently for such types of land

and approved by the Government and;

3) restrictions under Goa, Daman and Diu

Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964.”

“18.Learned counsel also submitted that the

compensation payable to the appellant for the

acquired land cannot be based on the average price

of the two sale deeds dated 11.12.1993 relied upon

by the appellant as the sale deed dated 11.12.1993

pertain to plots that are smaller in size i.e. Rs.365/-

sq. metre and Rs.275/- sq. metre. This apart, plots

were not developed by making roads, drainages

etc. as required under the planning law and sub-

divisions made were also approved by the Town

and Country Planning Department as well as the

village panchayat. Hence, the price at which the

plots were sold i.e. at Rs.250 per sq. metre cannot

be considered for the purpose of valuation of the

acquired land. Further, the price fetched for smaller

plots cannot be applied to lands covering large area

as held by this Court in various judgments and, in

particular, 1977 (1) SCC 684 Prithvi Raj Taneja

(dead) by LRs Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and

Anr. It is further argued that the acquired land in

question is located at a distance of 15 kms. from

the airport, 20 kms. from Vasco city, 18 kms. from

Panaji, 3 kms. from Cortalim market and there is

no approach road to the location.”

“19.It was further submitted that the comparable sales

method of valuation of land can be adopted in case

where the acquired land in question is being

compared to the similar type of acquired land,

made pursuant to the same preliminary ::: Uploaded on - 04/01/2022 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2025 21:53:28 :::

*228* MIDC LATUR

notification. But if any of the factors such as

location, shape, size potentiality or tenure of the

acquired land widely differs from the other plots

then the market value of the acquired land has to

be determined independently of the others as held

by this Court in Printer House Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mst.

Saiyadan (Deceased) by LRs and Others, 1994 (2)

SCC 133. It was also submitted that while

determining the amount to be awarded for the

acquired land in the year 1994, the LAO while

passing the award dated 25.08.1995, in terms of

the provisions of the Act had considered:

a) the area and the nature of the acquired land,

b) the objects filed by the petitioner,

c) damages sustained by the petitioner,

d) inspected the land under acquisition to ascertain

the advantages and disadvantages from the

valuation point of view,

e) the market value of trees, structure etc.

f) the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu

Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 as applicable to the

Acquired land,