VISHWANATH BHAGUJI SHEP DIED THROUGH LRS AMBIKA AND ORS. MUNDE SANDEEP D. vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS — FA/1845/2018

Case under Land Acquisition Act - Appeal. Disposed: --DISPOSED OFF on 07th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 01-Aug-2018

CNR: HCBM030521622017

Filing Number

FA/42121/2017

Filing Date

22-Dec-2017

Registration No

FA/1845/2018

Registration Date

20-Jun-2018

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice Kishore C. Sant , Hon'ble Shri Justice Sushil M. Ghodeswar

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice Kishore C. Sant , Hon'ble Shri Justice Sushil M. Ghodeswar

Bench Type

Division

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

07-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 16-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Land Acquisition Act - Appeal

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.VISHWANATH BHAGUJI SHEP DIED THROUGH LRS AMBIKA AND ORS. MUNDE SANDEEP D.

  2. 2.SOMNATH VISHWANATHRAO SHEP

  3. 3.ARUN VISHWANATH SHEP

  4. 4.KAMAL W/O SUDHAKAR @ SUDHAKARRAO JADHAVAR

  5. 5.KANCHAN W/O VALMIK MUNDE.

  6. 6.BHARAT S/O VISHWANATH SHEP

  7. 7.RAJESHREE W/O PRALAHAD SIRSAT.

  8. 8.WALMIK @ VALMIK YASHWANTA SHEP DIED THROUGH LRS KANCHANBAI

  9. 9.MAHENDRA S/O WALMIK @ ALMIK SHEP (SON).

  10. 10.RAHUL S/O WALMIK @ VALMIK SHEP (SON).

  11. 11.MINAKSHI W/O BHARAT MUNDE (DAUGHTER).

  12. 12.REKHA W/O ATMARAM PHAD (DAUGHTER).

  13. 13.VIDHYA W/O JAGANNATH PHAD (DAUGHTER).

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

    Adv. ADV GIRISH RANE FOR R/3,R/4 TO R/19 ARE SERVED 1123

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 07-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Kishore C. Sant,hon'ble Shri Justice Sushil M. GhodeswarView PDF

    Case Summary: FA/1845/2018 The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) partially allowed consolidated land acquisition appeals, enhancing compensation from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 57,750 per acre. The court found the reference court incorrectly attributed Rs. 40 lakhs of a Rs. 45 lakh sale price to construction costs rather than land value, and properly valued the land using the sale deed as an exemplar with appropriate deductions, applying principles from recent Supreme Court precedent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Kishore C. Sant,hon'ble Shri Justice Sushil M. GhodeswarView PDF

  4. 11-Mar-2026

    For Orders

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Kishore C. Sant , Hon'ble Shri Justice Sushil M. Ghodeswar

  5. 06-Mar-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Kishore C. Sant,hon'ble Shri Justice Sushil M. GhodeswarView PDF

  6. 06-Mar-2026

    For Orders

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Kishore C. Sant , Hon'ble Shri Justice Sushil M. Ghodeswar

  7. 18-Feb-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Kishore C. Sant,hon'ble Shri Justice Sushil M. GhodeswarView PDF

  8. 03-Feb-2026

    For Orders

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Kishore C. Sant , Hon'ble Shri Justice Sushil M. Ghodeswar

  9. 29-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Kishore C. Sant,hon'ble Shri Justice Sushil M. GhodeswarView PDF

  10. 29-Jan-2026

    For Orders

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Kishore C. Sant , Hon'ble Shri Justice Sushil M. Ghodeswar

  11. 13-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Kishore C. Sant,hon'ble Shri Justice Sushil M. GhodeswarView PDF

  12. 13-Jan-2026

    For Orders

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Kishore C. Sant , Hon'ble Shri Justice Sushil M. Ghodeswar

  13. 06-Jan-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Kishore C. Sant,hon'ble Shri Justice Sushil M. GhodeswarView PDF

  14. 07-Apr-2020

    Notification

    According To Sitting List

  15. 12-Sep-2018

    Await Notices CIVIL Side Matters

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prasanna B. Varale , Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge

  16. 01-Aug-2018

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Prasanna B. Varale,hon'ble Shri Justice S. M. GavhaneView PDF

  17. 01-Aug-2018

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  18. 20-Mar-2018

    —View PDF

  19. 22-Dec-2017

    Case filed

    Registration No. FA/1845/2018

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: FA/1845/2018 The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) partially allowed consolidated land acquisition appeals, enhancing compensation from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 57,750 per acre. The court found the reference court incorrectly attributed Rs. 40 lakhs of a Rs. 45 lakh sale price to construction costs rather than land value, and properly valued the land using the sale deed as an exemplar with appropriate deductions, applying principles from recent Supreme Court precedent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case