Pandurang Chandu Dasgaonkar @ Desai vs May Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition Officer) Sub Division Officer, Mahad — 79/2020
Case under Land Acquisition Act Section 18. Disposed: Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED on 02nd May 2026.
L.A.R. - Land Ref.
CNR: MHRG190007332023
Filing Number
79/2020
Filing Date
17-Sep-2020
Registration No
79/2020
Registration Date
04-Dec-2020
Court
Court of Civil Judge S.D. Mahad
Judge
1-Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
Decision Date
02-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--PARTLY ALLOWED
Last updated 29-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Pandurang Chandu Dasgaonkar @ Desai
Adv. Navale B. T.
Respondent(s)
-
1.May Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition Officer) Sub Division Officer, Mahad
-
2.May. Collector, Raigad
-
3.May. Executive Engineering, Hetwane
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
02-May-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
-
02-May-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
-
02-May-2026
Copy of JudgmentView PDF
Summary: Pandurang Chandu Dasgaonkar v. Special Land Acquisition Officer Court Decision: The reference was partly allowed. The applicant succeeded in proving the original compensation was inadequate; he was awarded enhanced compensation at Rs.700/- per sq.meter instead of his claim for Rs.1,000/- per sq.meter, plus statutory benefits (30% solatium, 12% additional component) and interest. Key Reasoning: The court found the Special Land Acquisition Officer's valuation method—grouping lands by revenue assessment and relying solely on the Ready Reckoner—violated settled law. The applicant's evidence of comparable sales deeds showing higher rates, proximity to M.I.D.C., railway station, and N.A. potential justified enhancement, though a 65% deduction for development costs was applied to differentiate undeveloped agricultural land from developed city property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
02-May-2026
Disposed
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
08-Apr-2026
Arguments
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
02-Apr-2026
Arguments
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
23-Mar-2026
Evidence
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
12-Mar-2026
Evidence
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
26-Feb-2026
Evidence
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
29-Jan-2026
Evidence
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
15-Jan-2026
Evidence
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
01-Jan-2026
Order on ExhibitView PDF
-
01-Jan-2026
Evidence
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
11-Dec-2025
Evidence
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
13-Nov-2025
Evidence
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
06-Nov-2025
Evidence
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
16-Oct-2025
Order on ExhibitView PDF
-
16-Oct-2025
Evidence Part Heard
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
23-Sep-2025
Evidence Part Heard
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
18-Sep-2025
Evidence
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
14-Aug-2025
Evidence
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
24-Jul-2025
Evidence
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
10-Jul-2025
Evidence Part Heard
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
19-Jun-2025
Hearing
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
24-Apr-2025
Amended Plaint
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
03-Apr-2025
Order on ExhibitView PDF
-
03-Apr-2025
Amended Plaint
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
06-Feb-2025
Filing of Say on Exh___Ready
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
19-Dec-2024
Issues
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
24-Oct-2024
Issues
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
08-Aug-2024
Issues
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
02-May-2024
—
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
28-Mar-2024
—
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
21-Dec-2023
—
Civil Judge Senior Division, Mahad
-
12-Oct-2023
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
17-Sep-2020
Case filed
Registration No. 79/2020
Summary: Pandurang Chandu Dasgaonkar v. Special Land Acquisition Officer Court Decision: The reference was partly allowed. The applicant succeeded in proving the original compensation was inadequate; he was awarded enhanced compensation at Rs.700/- per sq.meter instead of his claim for Rs.1,000/- per sq.meter, plus statutory benefits (30% solatium, 12% additional component) and interest. Key Reasoning: The court found the Special Land Acquisition Officer's valuation method—grouping lands by revenue assessment and relying solely on the Ready Reckoner—violated settled law. The applicant's evidence of comparable sales deeds showing higher rates, proximity to M.I.D.C., railway station, and N.A. potential justified enhancement, though a 65% deduction for development costs was applied to differentiate undeveloped agricultural land from developed city property. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts