Shahuraj Harischandra Pawar v. The State Of Maharashtra Thr Collector, Osmanabad And ANR
2025:BHC-AUG:31252
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH
AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.2528 OF 2025 Mohan Bhagwan Jadhav, Age 45 years, Occu. : Agri., R/o Holi, Tq. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad.
...
Appellant (Ori. Claimant)
Versus
1.
The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad.
2.
District Rehabilitation Officer, Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad. ...
Respondents.
WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2527 OF 2025 Dattu Raghunath Jadhav, Age 68 years, Occu. : Agri., R/o Holi, Tq. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad.
...
Appellant (Ori. Claimant)
Versus
1.
The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad.
2.
District Rehabilitation Officer, Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad. ...
Respondents.
WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2530 OF 2025 Shahuraj Harischandra Pawar, Age 60 years, Occu. : Agri., R/o Holi, Tq. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad.
...
Appellant (Ori. Claimant)
Versus
1.
The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad.
2.
District Rehabilitation Officer, Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad. ...
Respondents.
WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.2529 OF 2025 Ram Shankar Jadhav, Age 74 years, Occu. : Agri., R/o Holi, Tq. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad.
...
Appellant (Ori. Claimant)
Versus
1.
The State of Maharashtra, Through Collector, Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad.
2.
District Rehabilitation Officer, Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad. ...
Respondents.
...
Advocate for Appellants in all FA : Mr. Shashikiran N. Patil. AGP for Respondents/State in all FA : Mr. S. V. Hange. ...
CORAM :
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE :
18.11.2025 O RDER :- 1.
This motion is made for speaking to minutes to the common judgment dated 12.11.2025.
2.
An inadvertent mistake occurred in clause (ii) of the operative part, as has been pointed out by learned counsel
for the appellants. The rate quoted in the clause would be interpreted to be applied for entire piece of land acquired, which is not in consonance with the judgment passed by the Reference Court in the matter which is expressly referred in para 5 of the judgment. In that case also the rate is made applicable to 1904 sq meter after deducting 32% from the acquired area. The mistake is apparent on record and needs to be ratified by clarifying that rate would be applied to the area calculated after deduction of 32%.
3.
The operative clause (ii) shall mention the words "for the area acquired after deducting 32%" after the word "meter".
4.
Necessary corrections be carried out in the original order and corrected order be uploaded.
5.
Motion is disposed of.
(SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.) ...
vmk/-