THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA GOVT.PLEADER vs VITHAL B. SAWANT — FA/1531/2002

Case under Land Acquisition Act. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 04th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 28-Feb-2011

CNR: HCBM010085772001

Filing Number

FA/6856/2001

Filing Date

20-Feb-2001

Registration No

FA/1531/2002

Registration Date

25-Oct-2002

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan

Bench Type

Single

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

04-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Land Acquisition Act
Code of Civil Procedure
Indian Evidence Act

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA GOVT.PLEADER

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.VITHAL B. SAWANT

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 04-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Somasekhar SundaresanView PDF

    The Bombay High Court dismissed Maharashtra's appeal against the reference court's land acquisition award without interference. The State's appeal challenging the 6th Joint CJSD Pune's judgment of July 26, 2000 (which awarded Rs. 7,892 versus the acquisition officer's Rs. 728) was upheld, with the State directed to comply within 12 weeks. The court declined to set precedent on merits given the meagre amounts involved and protracted pendency. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 01-Aug-2021

    National Lok Adalat,hon'ble Shri Justice Surendra Pandharinath TavadeView PDF

  4. 10-Apr-2021

    For Order

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik , National Lok Adalat

  5. 02-Jul-2018

    For Final Hearing

    Provisional Board

  6. 28-Feb-2011

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  7. 20-Feb-2001

    Case filed

    Registration No. FA/1531/2002

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court dismissed Maharashtra's appeal against the reference court's land acquisition award without interference. The State's appeal challenging the 6th Joint CJSD Pune's judgment of July 26, 2000 (which awarded Rs. 7,892 versus the acquisition officer's Rs. 728) was upheld, with the State directed to comply within 12 weeks. The court declined to set precedent on merits given the meagre amounts involved and protracted pendency. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case