Ramchandra Pandu Ganeshker v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 Apr 2005FA/1298/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-bench Civil Appellate judgment set aside original orders denying claimants compensation on evaluation of sale instances from a nearby village. Court directed award of Rs.6,000 per hectare replacing Rs.4,000 per hectare to ensure consistency with a subsequent order by the same judge. Statutory benefits enhanced.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders modified; compensation fixed at Rs.6,000 per hectare; statutory benefits consequentially enhanced.

What the court decided

AI extract

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO.1298 OF 1996

¶5

 Ramchandra Pandu Ganeshkar : Appellant

¶6

 versus

¶7

 The State of Maharashtra : Respondent.

¶8

ALONG WITH

¶9

FIRST APPEAL NO.1237 OF 1996.

¶10

 Ramchandra Nana Dhanve : Appellant.

¶11

 versus

¶12

 The State of Maharashtra : Respondent.

¶13

 Mr.M.A.Choudhary for the appellants.

Ramchandra Pandu Ganeshker Vs the State of Maharashtra — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2005)

¶20

 original claims against two different orders
 passed by the Reference Court i.e. The Civil
 Judge, Sr.Division, Pandharpur awarding
 Rs.4,000/- per hectare as compensation for the
 acquired land when the claimants had claimed
 Rs.10,000/- per hectare. The Special Land
 Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs.3,000/- per
 hectare.

¶21

 2. The lands of the claimants situated at
 village Borale, Taluka Mangalwedha were acquired
 and, in order to prove their claims for higher
 compensation, the claimants relied upon one sale
 instance of village Borale, that is prior to the
 notification under Section 4 of the Land
 Acquisition Act. The date of notification under
 Section 4 is 10.7.1971 and, three sale instances
 of village Mangalwedha. The Reference Court,
 however, observed and held that there was
 considerable distance between the acquired lands
 and the lands under sale deeds of Mangalwedha and
 Borale cannot have same importance as Mangalwedha
 area and, therefore, sale instance of Mangalwedha
 cannot be said to be a proper indicator of market
 value of the lands situated at Borale.
 Therefore, the Reference Court refused to enhance

¶24

 3. The counsel for the claimants relied upon
 the judgment or order of the same Court and the
 same judge delivered one year after in LAR No.287
 of 1989 and other LARs. The date of the order is
 30th June 1995. In that group of LARs also the
 acquired lands were from village Borale and the
 claimants in that group relied upon sale
 instances of village Mangalwedha. Those sale
 instances were prior to the notification under
 Section 4 in that case. But the Court relied
 upon those sale instances even though it has come
 on record that the distance between the lands
 under sale deeds [of Mangalwedha] and the acquire
 lands was about 1.5 k.m. and, the Court also
 held that those sale instances of Mangalwedha
 were relevant for determination of market value
 of the acquire lands situated at Borale because
 Borale is adjoining to Mangalwedha. The counsel
 for the claimants, therefore, contended that if
 the facts in the present two appeals and the
 facts in the group of LARs are identical, then
 Court should have either followed the view
 earlier taken in that order. But if the Court

¶27

 4. I find considerable force in this
 submission. In the present two appeals, the
 lands are from Borale and the sale instances of
 Mangalwedha were relied upon by the claimants,
 but the Reference Court refused to take them into
 consideration for the reasons stated above. In
 the subsequent judgment given in 1995 by the same
 Court and by the same Judge, the lands were from
 village Borale and the sale instances of
 Mangalwedha were relied upon; they were taken
 into consideration and, consequently compensation
 was awarded at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per
 hectare. Therefore, following the same judgment,
 it has to be held that the claimants in the
 present two appeals are entitled to the
 compensation at the rate of Rs.6,000/- per
 hectare.

¶31

 However, there has to be consistency in the
 findings in respect of the matters similarly
 situated and, therefore, if in the judgment of
 1995 the Court has awarded Rs.6,000/- per
 hectare, the same has to be awarded in both the
 present appeals. Hence I pass the following
 order :-

Ramchandra Pandu Ganeshker v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of India Vs Tanaji Ashru Lokare and Ors.

Vs

Gulabso Aminso Mujawar (Deceased) Vs R.R. Tukaram Santaram Patil

The Manager Parbhani Pamji Dept and Anr. Vs Haribai Anandrao Gaikwad and Ors.

Ramchandra Pandu Ganeshker v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bank of India Vs Tanaji Ashru Lokare and Ors.

Vs

Gulabso Aminso Mujawar (Deceased) Vs R.R. Tukaram Santaram Patil

The Manager Parbhani Pamji Dept and Anr. Vs Haribai Anandrao Gaikwad and Ors.

A compact analysis

Dattatray Baburao Anerao and Anr. Vs Rajaram Babu Pawar and Anr.

The Manager Parbhani Pamji Dept and Anr. Vs Haribai Anandrao Gaikwad and Ors.