Thagnabai Govinda Jadhav vs State of Maharashtra — 200167/2013
Case under Land Acquisition Act Section 18. Disposed: Contested--REJECTED on 31st March 2026.
L.A.R. - Land Acquisition Reference
CNR: MHJN020014882014
Filing Number
201955/2014
Filing Date
12-12-2014
Registration No
200167/2013
Registration Date
11-03-2013
Court
Civil Court Senior Division , Jalna
Judge
29-2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division
Decision Date
31st March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--REJECTED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Thagnabai Govinda Jadhav
Adv. GHULEPATIL A B
Respondent(s)
State of Maharashtra
The SLAO Gaothan, Jalna
Executive Engineer
Hearing History
Judge: 29-2nd Joint Civil Judge Senior Division
Disposed
Order
Order
Evidence
Evidence
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 31-03-2026 | Disposed |
| 23-03-2026 | Order |
| 16-03-2026 | Order |
| 23-02-2026 | Evidence |
| 13-02-2026 | Evidence |
Final Orders / Judgements
The court dismissed the claimant's reference seeking enhancement of land acquisition compensation. The reference was found to be outside the limitation period prescribed under Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as the objection was not raised within six weeks of receiving the acquisition notice dated 24.05.2006. Additionally, the claimant failed to adduce any evidence to prove inadequacy of compensation despite being granted extensive opportunities over 13 years, and the burden of proof to establish improper/inadequate compensation was not met. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
The court dismissed the claimant's reference seeking enhancement of land acquisition compensation. The reference was found to be outside the limitation period prescribed under Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as the objection was not raised within six weeks of receiving the acquisition notice dated 24.05.2006. Additionally, the claimant failed to adduce any evidence to prove inadequacy of compensation despite being granted extensive opportunities over 13 years, and the burden of proof to establish improper/inadequate compensation was not met. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts