Partly allowed

Mohrabai Dada Chatke v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Apr 2005FA/899/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court partly allowed an appeal regarding land acquisition compensation. The Court held that the trial court erred by rejecting sale instance evidence due to distance inferences based solely on gat numbers without rebuttal evidence. The Court fixed compensation at Rs.12,000 per hectare.

What did the court decide?

Appeal partly allowed. Entitlement to compensation at Rs.12,000/- per hectare with proportionate consequential rise in statutory benefits.

Mohrabai Dada Chatke Vs the State of Maharashtra — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

:1:

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 899 OF 1996

¶4

 Smt. Moharbai Dada Chatke ..Appellant

¶5

 versus

¶6

 The State of Maharashtra ..Respondents

¶7

 Mr. Nitin Jamdar for the Appellant.

¶8

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

¶9

 CORAM : D. G. DESHPANDE,J.

¶10

 DATE : 8TH APRIL,2005

¶11

ORAL ORDER :

¶12

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

¶13

 2. Appellant- claimant whose land was acquired
 and to whom the Reference Court awarded Rs.4,450/-
 per hectare, being dissatisfied by the said
 judgment, had filed this appeal.

¶14

 3. The area of 6 H and 46 R from Village
 Liksal, Taluka Mohol, District Solapur was acquired
 by the State. SLAO awarded Rs.3,800/- per hectare.
 The claimant approached the Reference Court claiming
 Rs.25,000/- per hectare as compensation. Claimant

¶15

:2:

¶16

 relied upon sale instance by examining the claimant.

¶17

 That sale instance is discussed by the court in
 paragraph 12. Notification under Section 4 was
 11.4.1985. The sale instance was of May 1985, there
 price of the land was Rs.25,000/- per hectare. The
 Reference court however refused to rely upon that
 sale deed holding that the acquired land and the
 land which was the subject matter of the sale deed
 were far away. Then according to the claimant the
 distance was about 100 to 200 meters. However, the
 court took into consideration the gat numbers of
 both the lands and inferred that distance must be
 too much.

¶18

 4. This approach of the trial court does not
 appear to be proper. The distance between the land
 cannot be decided on the basis of the gut number.
 When the claimant has on his own stated that the
 distance was about 100 to 200 meters and when the
 State did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal in
 that regard, the sale deed should have been taken
 into consideration for fixing the compensation.

¶19

 5. Further, the learned AGP contended that the
 subject matter of the sale deed which was tried to
 be proved through certified copy at Exhibit 12 was a
 small piece of land, whereas acquired land is 6H and
 46R i.e. near about 16 - 17 acres. He therefore

¶20

:3:

¶21

 contended that the price for a larger piece of land
 and like 16 acres, the price fixed for very small
 portion of the land, cannot be equated. There is
 considerable force in the submission. However, the
 fact remains that the claimant is entitled for
 enhanced compensation and the enhancement granted by
 the Reference Court is not adequate.

¶22

 6. In the circumstances looking to the price
 that came to be given for the land under Exhibit 12,
 Rs.12,000/- per hectare only would be adequate and
 proper. Therefore appeal filed by the claimant has
 to be allowed partly. Hence, order:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

 . Appeal is partly allowed.

¶25

 . Claimant will be entitled to compensation at
 the rate of Rs.12,000/- per hectare with
 proportionate consequential rise in the statutory
 benefits.

¶26

 . No order as to costs.

¶27

 8.04.2005 (D.G. DESHPANDE, J.)

Mohrabai Dada Chatke v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohrabai Dada Chatke v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

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.

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