Bombay High Court
CA/12976/2011 of THE STATE OF MAHRASHTRA Vs ABHIMAN KASHINATH SANAP AND ORS on 9 October 2026
915-FA.3104.2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 915 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3104 OF 2016 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VERSUS ABHIMAN KASHINATH SANAP AND ORS ... Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for the Appellant/State. Mr. N. K. Tungar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Avinash D.
1 of 2 915-FA.3104.2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
915 FIRST APPEAL NO. 3104 OF 2016
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
VERSUS
ABHIMAN KASHINATH SANAP AND ORS
...
Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for the Appellant/State.
Mr. N. K. Tungar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. Avinash D. Aghav, Advocate for Respondent No.5 is Absent.
...
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12976 OF 2011
IN FA/3104/2016
THE STATE OF MAHRASHTRA
VERSUS
ABHIMAN KASHINATH SANAP AND ORS
…
Mr. D. R. Korde, AGP for the Appellant/State.
Mr. N. K. Tungar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. Avinash D. Aghav, Advocate for Respondent No.5 is Absent.
...
CORAM :
SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE :
9th OCTOBER, 2026
P.C.:-
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Since the acquisition proceedings pertain to the year 2005, the appeal is heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocates for the respective parties.
2. By this appeal, the Appellant/State is aggrieved by the Judgment and award dated 28.02.2011 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division at Beed in L.A.R. No.385/2009. 2026:BHC-AUG:48454
2 of 2 915-FA.3104.2016
3. Both the learned Advocates for the respective parties submit that the compensation enhanced by the learned Reference Court does not exceed four times the amount awarded by the SLAO.
4. In fact the State Government vide Government Resolution No.Sankirna-2014/Prak.Kra.4/Bham-1/A-4 dated 03.11.2016 with Corrigendum dated 23.02.2017 and 13.08.2018 to the said Government Resolution, took a decision not to challenge the reference, if compensation is enhanced only upto four times.
5. Therefore, I do not find any reason to intervene with the impugned order. Hence, the present Appeal is dismissed.
6. In view of dismissal of the Appeal, pending Civil Applications, if any, do not survive and are disposed of accordingly.
(SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.) Tauseef