Partly allowed

The State of Maharashtra v. Biru Syapa Sargar and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Apr 2005FA/1024/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil appeal, the High Court examined compensation for land acquisition where the Reference Court enhanced the award. The Court noted a lack of evidence to prove the portion of land classified as Jirayat versus Bagayat, leading it to apportion the rate equally between the two categories.

What did the court decide?

Respondents entitled to Rs. 16,600/ha for half the land and Rs. 24,900/ha for the other half, with statutory benefits reduced proportionately.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Biru Syapa Sargar and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

:1:

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1024 OF 1992

¶5

 The State of Maharashtra ..Appellants

¶6

 versus

¶7

 Biru Sayappa Sagar & Ors. ..Respondents

¶8

 Mr. S. N. Gawade, AGP for the Appellants.

¶9

 None for the Respondents.

¶10

 CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE,J.

¶11

 DATE : 20TH APRIL,2005

¶12

ORAL ORDER :

¶13

 1. Heard learned AGP for the State which has
 filed this Appeal against the Order of the Reference
 Court dated 18.3.1991. The Respondents are served,
 nobody is present for the Respondents.

¶14

 2. The land admeausring 2 H 28 Ares of the
 claimants was acquired. SLAO awarded Rs.30,507.20
 as a total compensation. The claimants therefore
 filed Reference. Reference court enhanced the
 compensation to Rs.30,000/- per hectare.

¶15

 3. The learned AGP contended that the sale
 deeds dated 4.11.1968 and 19.8.1982 were in respect

¶16

:2:

¶17

 of Bagayat land; whereas one sale deed dated

¶18

 1.6.1982 was in respect of Jirayat land, that sale
 deed even if accepted would enable the claimants to
 get Rs.16,600/- per hectare and not Rs.30,000/- per
 hectare.

¶19

 4. From the judgment, it appears that no
 reasonings have been given by the Reference Court
 for awarding Rs.30,000/- per hectare as
 compensation. Relevant sale deed is of 1.6.1982 and
 the rate per hectare in that sale was Rs.16,600/-
 per hectare, therefore the claimants would be
 entitled to, as rightly argued by the learned AGP,
 for compensation of Rs.16,600/- per hectare.

¶20

 5. However, from the judgment and evidence it
 appears that out of 2 H 28 Ares, part of land is
 Jirayat and Part of land is Bagayat. Particulars as
 to how much land was jirayat and how much bagayat,
 were not given. According to the claimants the land
 which remained with them after acquisition was
 Jirayat land. This is a general statement made by
 the claimants. Claimants have not specified as to
 how much land was Bagayat and how much land was
 Jirayat and there is no document to support this
 contention. Therefore, in the absence of any
 evidence in that regard, half of the acquired land
 can be considered as Bagayat and the remaining half

¶21

:3:

¶22

 as Jirayat.

¶23

 6. If as per the sale deed dated 1.6.1982,

¶24

 Rs.16,600/- was price of Jirayat land then
 compensation for Bagayat land can be determined at
 one half times and it would come to Rs.24,900/- per
 hectare. The claimants will be entitled to
 compensation on that rate in respect of the half of
 the acquired land and for the remaining half would
 be entitled to Rs.16,600/- per hectare as Jirayat
 land. Therefore, this appeal is to be partly
 allowed. Hence, order :

¶25

ORDER

¶26

 . Appeal is partly allowed.

¶27

 . Claimants - Respondents will be entitled to
 Rs.16,600/- per hectare as compensation for half of
 the acquired land, and at Rs.24,900/- for the
 remaining half of the acquired land. Statutory
 benefits shall be reduced in that proportion. No

¶28

 order as to costs.

¶29

 20.04.2005 (D.G. DESHPANDE, J.)

The State of Maharashtra v. Biru Syapa Sargar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Biru Syapa Sargar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shri Subhash Anant Shetye

Kiran Jaykumar Patil. Vs Bapu Bala Patil and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Mrs.Barkibai B.Bhagat and Ors.

Ganapati Sitaram Satpute and Ors. Vs Shri Dattaram Sitaram Satpute and Ors.

Sindhu Mangesh Chogle and Ors. Vs Devdatrta Manohar Chogle and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Biru Syapa Sargar and Ors.