The High Court in civil appellate jurisdiction dismissed the State of Maharashtra's appeal. The bench held that the reference Court's order enhancing compensation for acquired land was well reasoned and based on a comparable sale instance, requiring no interference.
The appeal was dismissed with civil application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
FIRST APPEAL NO.782 OF 1993.
The State of Maharashtra : Appellants.
versus
Appu Bharma Amrelkar : Respondent.
Mr.B.R.Patil, Acting Government Pleader, for the
State/Respondent.
None for the respondent.
CORAM : D.G.DESHPANDE,J.
DATED : 26th APRIL 2005.
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard the learned AGP for the State.
Nobody is present for the respondent. The state
has filed this appeal challenging the order of
the reference Court enhancing compensation from
Rs.20,927/- to Rs.56400/- in respect of 1 Hector
41 R of the acquired land of the claimant under
2
the Land Acquisition Act. The notification under
Section 4 was dated 13.7.1978. The claimant
relied some sale instances. But the reference
Court relied upon only one sale instance which
was of the same village and where price for
similarly situated land was fixed at Rs.15,384/-
per acre. The court took Rs.16000/- as round
figure for enhancement of compensation for the
acquired land. The sale instance was of the
relevant period and, therefore, it was comparable
sale instance. The other sale instances were
rightly rejected by the reference Court. The
judgment is, therefore, well reasoned judgment
and does not call for interference. There is no
substance in this appeal. It is dismissed with
civil application.
[D.G.DESHPANDE]
26/04/2005 JUDGE.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order enhancing compensation by the reference Court requires interference.
Whether the single sale instance relied upon by the reference Court was comparable.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The State of Maharashtra
Appu Bharma Amrelkar
D.G.DESHPANDE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court