Dismissed

The State of Mahrashtra v. Shri Namdeo Bhanudas Sitole and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Apr 2005FA/324/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a first appeal challenging a Reference Court's judgment on land acquisition compensation, the Single Judge, after hearing the State and noting respondents' absence, upheld the lower court's classification and award, finding the approach proper and unjust to overturn, thus dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the State is dismissed. No order as to costs.

The State of Mahrashtra Vs Shri Namdeo Bhanudas Sitole and… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO.324 OF 1999.

¶5

 The State of Maharashtra : Appellants.

¶6

 versus

¶7

 Namdeo Bhanudas Sitole & Anr. : Respondents.

¶8

 Mr.S.N.Gawade, AGP, for the State/Appellants.
 None for the respondents.

¶9

CORAM : D.G.DESHPANDE,J.

¶10

 DATED : 21st APRIL 2005.

¶11

ORAL ORDER

¶12

 1. Heard the learned AGP for the State.

¶13

 Notices were served upon the respondents. They
 are absent. This appeal is filed by the State
 challenging the judgment of the Reference Court
 dated 28.3.1994 in a reference under the Land
 Acquisition Act.

¶14

¶15

 2. An area of 2 Hectare from Gat No.349 of
 the claimants/respondents was acquired for Minor
 Irrigation Tank, Kalambwadi. The Special Land
 Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.18,000/- per
 hector after classifying the land in four groups
 of seasonal bagayat lands. The grouping depended
 on the land revenue. For Group I, compensation
 was at Rs.7800/- per hector; for Group II it was
 at Rs.9000/- per hector; for Group III it was at
 Rs.10500/- and; for Group IV it was at
 Rs.12000/- per hector. The Reference Court found
 that this classification and grouping was not
 proper. If Rs.12000/- per hector was given as
 maximum compensation, then, according to the
 Reference Court, the claimants were entitled to
 additional amount of Rs.6000/-. On and above the
 claimants were also paid additional compensation
 of Rs.3360/- and Rs.1800/- as solatium. The
 approach of the reference Court is proper. It is
 not unjust. In the circumstances, therefore,
 there is no merit in this appeal. The same is
 dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶16

 [D.G.DESHPANDE]

¶17

¶18

 21/04/2005 JUDGE.

The State of Mahrashtra v. Shri Namdeo Bhanudas Sitole and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Mahrashtra v. Shri Namdeo Bhanudas Sitole and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Biru Syapa Sargar 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 Mahrashtra Vs Shri Namdeo Bhanudas Sitole and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Waman M Deore

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shri Vinod Chandrakant Pitale