Partly allowed

The State of Maharashtra v. Mr.Nama Alya Patil

Bombay HC19 Apr 2005FA/247/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appellate order concerns land acquisition compensation. The High Court partially allowed the appeal, modifying the impugned order to fix the compensation rate at Rs.21/- per sq.mtr. based on established proximity criteria, rather than the rate originally awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was partly allowed; the impugned order was modified to award compensation at the rate of Rs.21/- per sq.mtr.; consequential benefits reduced proportionately.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Mr.Nama Alya Patil — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO.247 OF 2000.

¶5

 The State of Maharashtra : Appellants.

¶6

 versus

¶7

 Shri Nama Alya Patil : Respondent.

¶8

 Mr.B.R.Patil, Acting Government Pleader, for

¶9

 State.

¶10

 Mr.S.G.Surana for the respondent.

¶11

CORAM : D.G.DESHPANDE,J.

¶12

 DATED : 19th APRIL 2005.

¶13

ORAL ORDER

¶14

 1. The matter is on board for orders. Print
 is dispensed with. By consent the appeal is
 taken up for final hearing. Heard the learned
 AGP for the State/appellant and Mr.Surana for the
 respondent. The appeal arises out of the land
 acquisition proceedings. The property is
 situated at village Khanda of Panvel area. The

¶15

¶16

 Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded
 compensation at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq.mtr.
 The reference Court enhanced it to Rs.25/- per
 sq.mtr. The criteria applied, in all the matters
 arising from Panvel area from where the lands
 were acquired for New Bombay Project, was the
 proximity of the acquired land from the National
 Highway in view of the earlier Division Bench’s
 Judgment dated 16th March 2000 in a group of
 appeals in First Appeal No.875/1985 and ors.
 [comprising of Justice A.P.Shah and Justice
 J.A.Patil] and, looking to the fact that the
 acquired land in the present case is at a
 distance of 1600 mtrs away from the Bombay Pune
 National Highway. Therefore, the
 respondent/claimant will be entitled to get
 Rs.21/- per sq.mtr. Both the learned AGP and the
 advocate appearing for the claimant/respondent do
 not dispute this legal position. Hence, the
 order :-

¶17

 :ORDER:

¶18

 The appeal is partly allowed.

¶19

 The impugned order is modified. The

¶20

¶21

 respondent/claimant to get compensation
 at the rate of Rs.21/- per sq.mtr.

¶22

 Consequential benefits to stand

¶23

 proportionately reduced.

¶24

 No order as to costs.

¶25

 [D.G.DESHPANDE]

¶26

 19/04/2005 JUDGE.

The State of Maharashtra v. Mr.Nama Alya Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Mr.Nama Alya Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Akkatai S. Bhore Vs M.S.R.T.C. Depatt. and Ors.

Shri Azim Mohamad Khalfe. Vs Noormahamad G. Belim and Ors.

The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs Baburao Laxman Palkar and Ors.

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.