Partly allowed

The State of Maharashtra. v. Sou.J.v.Gaikwad Thr.P.a.Mr.R.G.Chavan.

Bombay HC8 Apr 2005FA/347/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this first appeal, the State challenged a Reference Court order enhancing land compensation as Rs.22,926.50 was incommensurate with the original award. The High Court acknowledged procedural errors regarding evidence but allowed the appeal partly, reducing the enhancement to Rs.13,000.

What did the court decide?

If the Claimant is entitled to an additional ₹13,000/ in addition to the compensation by the SLAO.

The State of Maharashtra. Vs Sou.J.v.Gaikwad… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

:1:

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 347 OF 1992

¶3

 The State of Maharashtra ..Appellants

¶4

 versus

¶5

 Sou. Jagubai V. Gaikwad ..Respondent

¶6

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

¶7

 Mr. L. S. Gaikwad for the Respondent.

¶8

 CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE,J.

¶9

 DATE : 8TH APRIL,2005

¶10

ORAL ORDER :

¶11

 1. Heard learned AGP for the State and learned
 counsel for the Respondent.

¶12

 2. State has filed this appeal challenging the
 Order of the Reference Court - Civil Judge, Senior
 Division, Satara dated 28.2.1991 awarding
 Rs.22,926.50 paise more than as compensation to
 whatever was awarded by the SLAO.

¶13

 3. Different pieces of land from different
 survey numbers were acquired. Claimants had varied
 shares in those land, quality of the land was also
 taken. By consent, the evidence recorded in other

¶14

:2:

¶15

 Land Reference Nos. 5/87 and 7/87 was treated as

¶16

 evidence. However, all that evidence tendered by
 the claimant was in the form of certified copies of
 Index II, viz. Exhibits 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23. The
 learned AGP therefore contended that producing
 certified copies of Index is not sufficient either
 the sale deeds original or certified copy should
 have been produced and oral evidence to show
 similarities in the land acquired and which were
 subject matter of the suit, should have been
 adduced. Therefore, according to him the reference
 court committed an error in relying upon copies of
 Index 2.

¶17

 4. There is considerable force in the

¶18

 submissions. However, when once both the parties
 before the Reference Court agreed that evidence
 recorded in LAR No. 7/87 be treated as a evidence,
 then perhaps it appears that the claimant was misled
 and therefore he did not produce certified copies or
 did not tender any other oral evidence. It is true
 that reference court has enhanced the compensation
 as per paragraph 22 when the total land acquired was
 from different survey numbers and the difference
 between the price or compensation awarded by the
 reference court and the SLAO is Rs.22,926.50 paise,
 it cannot be said to be a much difference.
 Therefore, in the circumstances though the Index II

¶19

:3:

¶20

 entries cannot be relied upon, the facts remains
 that the claimant was entitled to some enhancement.
 Therefore, in my opinion, additional compensation of
 Rs.13,000/- in all would have been proper. I

¶21

 therefore, pass the following order :

¶22

ORDER

¶23

 . Appeal is partly allowed.

¶24

 . Claimant will be entitled to recover
 Rs.13,000/- only in addition to the compensation
 awarded by the SLAO. Consequently, benefits shall

¶25

 stand reduced proportionately.

¶26

 . No order as to costs.

¶27

 8.04.2005 (D.G. DESHPANDE, J.)

The State of Maharashtra. v. Sou.J.v.Gaikwad Thr.P.a.Mr.R.G.Chavan.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra. v. Sou.J.v.Gaikwad Thr.P.a.Mr.R.G.Chavan.

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 Ramchandra Krishna Patil

Chandrakant Narayan Sawant Vs Irfan Ismail Darji and Ors.

Mohd.Yusuf Shaikh Dawood Dakhave D/H Shafia Mohd.Yusuf Dhakhave and Ors. Vs Mohd.Ali Mohd.Hussain Ramrajkar D/H Badrunnissa Mohd.Ali Ramrajkar D/H Mohd.Iqbal Mohd.Ali Ramrajka

The State of Maharashtra. Vs Sou.J.v.Gaikwad Thr.P.a.Mr.R.G.Chavan.

Suvarna Jayawantrao @Jayant Patil and Ors. Vs M. Malayapan and Anr.

Mohrabai Dada Chatke Vs the State of Maharashtra