Partly allowed

The State of Maharashtra v. Hari Dattu Patil

Bombay HC14 Jul 2006FA/1072/1989

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the State's appeal challenging an award of excessive market value but allowed the respondent's cross-objection. Relying on the Apex Court in Shantadevi Ruparel, the court held that the amended section 25 applies, removing the embargo against awarding more than claimed. However, applying category IV-A from Nama Padu Hudar, the market value was fixed at Rs.20/sq. meter.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed. The cross-objection is allowed, and the impugned award is modified to grant market value at Rs. 20 per sq. meter along with statutory benefits.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Hari Dattu Patil — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

 ... 1 ...

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 FIRST APPEAL NO.1072 OF 1989

¶4

 The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant
 Vs.

¶5

 Hari Dattu Patil ...Respondent

¶6

 Shri K.K. Tated, A.G.P. for the Appellant.
 Mr Rajiv Patil for the Respondent.

¶7

CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J.

¶8

DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS RESERVED : MAY 02, 2006.

¶9

DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED : JULY 14, 2006.

¶10

JUDGMENT:

¶11

 1. The Respondent is the original claimant in a
 reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition
 Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).
 The acquisition relates to lands situated at village
 Panvel, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad. The lands
 subject matter of the Appeal were notified for
 acquisition by a notification dated 03rd February,
 1970 issued under section 4 of the said Act. The
 award under section 11 of the said Act was made on
 13th February, 1986 by which market value at the rate
 of Rs.2.70/- per sq. meter was offered to the
 Respondent. According to the case of the
 Respondent-Claimant, in response to the notice under
 section 9(3)(4) of the said Act, the Respondent
 claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq.

¶12

 ... 2 ...

¶13

 yard. By the impugned judgment and award dated 29th
 February, 1988, Reference Court fixed the market value
 at the rate of 15/- per sq. meter and granted
 statutory benefits to the Respondent.

¶14

 2. Present Appeal is preferred by the
 Appellant-State of Maharashtra for challenging the
 impugned judgment and award on the ground that the
 market value awarded is excessive. The
 Respondent-Claimant has filed a cross-objection in
 which market value is claimed at the rate of 25/- per
 sq. meter.

¶15

 3. Shri Tated, the learned A.G.P. appearing for
 the State submitted that the compensation awarded by
 the Reference Court is extremely on the higher side.
 He submitted that considering the evidence on record
 market value could not have been fixed at the rate of
 Rs. 15/- per sq. meter. Shri Rajiv Patil appearing
 for the Respondent-Claimant placed reliance on
 decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the

¶16

case of Nama Padu Hudar & Ors. Vs. State of
Maharashtra (First Appeal No.754 of 1986 & other
connected Appeals) delivered by a Division Bench of
 this Court on 25th and 26th February, 1992. He
 submitted that the said decision has attained

¶17

 ... 3 ...

¶18

 finality. He submitted that as the said decision
 relates to acquisition of the land at village Panvel
 which is covered by notification of the same date, the
 present Appeal will be governed by the said decision
 of this Court. He invited my attention to the
 evidence on record. He pointed out that the evidence
 shows that acquired land is situated at distance of
 480 meters away from Bombay-Pune National Highway and
 therefore, in view of the decision of the Division
 Bench, the Respondent will be entitled to market value
 at the rate of Rs.25/- per sq. meter. He submitted
 that as award under section 11 of the said Act was
 made after 24th September, 1984, the Respondent will
 be entitled to claim compensation at a rate more than
 Rs.20/- per sq. yard (i.e. about Rs.23/- per sq.
 meter) which was claimed in response to notice under
 section 9(3)(4) of the said Act as section 25 of the
 said Act as amended by the Amendment Act No.68 of 1984
 will apply to the present case. He placed reliance on
 decision of the Apex Court dated 06th March, 2006 in
Civil Appeal No.1557 of 2006 (Shantadevi Hariram
Ruparel Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr.).
 He also placed reliance on unreported decision of the

¶19

learned Single Judge of this Court dated 29th March,
2006 in First Appeal No.111 of 1992 (Hanif Ibrahim
Navedkar Vs. State of Maharashtra).

¶20

 ... 4 ...

¶21

 4. Shri Tated, learned A.G.P. has generally
 replied to the submissions made by Shri Rajiv Patil on
 cross-objection and in particular to the submissions
 regarding applicability of amended section 25 of the
 said Act. Shri Tated placed reliance on judgment and
 order dated 25th August, 2005 delivered by a Division
 Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.430 of 1993
(State of Maharashtra Vs. Dhanaji Kamalu Joshi). He
 also placed reliance on two more decisions of the same

¶22

Division Bench in case of Cosmopolitan Co-operative
Housing Society Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer
(First Appeal No.575 of 1995) decided on 23rd
September, 2005 and in the case of State of
Maharashtra Vs. Govind Goma Gowari & Ors. (First
Appeal No.710 of 1989). He invited my attention to
 the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Land
Acquisition Officer Vs. B.V. Reddy and Sons (2002
(3) Supreme Court Cases Page 463). He pressed into
 service decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Dadu Yogendrenath Singh Vs. The Collector (A.I.R.
1977 Supreme Court Page 1128). He pointed out that
 the Apex Court has not granted any stay to the
 operation and execution of the decision of Division
 Bench of this Court in the case of Cosmopolitan
 Co-operative Housing Society (supra). He submitted

¶23

 ... 5 ...

¶24

 that the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
 Shantadevi Ruparel (supra) does not lay down any
 ratio. He submitted that in any case the decision of
 the Apex Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer
 Vs. B.V. Reddy & Sons (supra) holds the field as it
 is delivered by a bench consisting of three Hon’ble
 Judges of the Supreme Court whereas, the decision of
 Shantadevi Ruparel (supra) is by a bench consisting of
 two Hon’ble Judges. On merits he submitted that the
 case of the Respondent will fall in category IVA fixed
 by the case of Nama Padu Hudar (supra). He,
 therefore, submitted that in any event the Respondent
 is entitled to market value at rate of more than
 Rs.20/- per sq. meter.

¶25

 5. I have considered the submissions. In the

¶26

 award under section 11 of the said Act which is
 forwarded alongwith the reference under section 18 of
 the said Act it is stated that notice under section 9
 of the said Act was served to the Respondent-Claimant
 and the Respondent-Claimant has submitted a claim of
 Rs.20/- per sq. yard in response to the said notice.
 The date of the award under section 11 is 13th April,
 1986. The submission regarding applicability of the
 amended section 25 of the said Act will have to be

¶27

 ... 6 ...

¶28

 considered first. The Land Acquisition (Amendment)
 Act, 1984 (Act No.68 of 1984) was brought into force
 on 24th September, 1984. Prior to the amendment
 carried out by the said Act, section 25 of the said
 Act read as under:

¶29

 "25. Rules as to amount of
 compensation.- (1) When the applicant has

¶30

 made a claim to compensation, pursuant to
 any notice given under Section 9, the
 amount awarded to him by the court shall
 not exceed the amount so claimed or to be
 less than the amount awarded by the
 Collector under Section 11.

¶31

 (2) When the applicant has refused to
 make such claim or has omitted without
 sufficient reason (to be allowed by the
 Judge) to make such claim, the amount
 awarded by the court shall in no case
 exceed the amount awarded by the Collector.

¶32

 (3) When the applicant has omitted for
 a sufficient reason (to be allowed by the
 Judge) to make such claim, the amount
 awarded to him by the court shall not be
 less than, and may exceed, the amount

¶33

 ... 7 ...

¶34

 awarded by the Collector."

¶35

 The Amendment to section 25 was made by Act No.68 of
 1984 which was brought into force on 24th September,
 1984. After amendment, section 25 of the said Act
 reads thus:

¶36

 "25. Amount of compensation by court not
 be lower than the amount awarded by the
 Collector.- The amount of compensation
 awarded by the court shall not be less than
 the amount awarded by the Collector under

¶37

 Section 11."

¶38

 6. Thus, before the amendment, it was not open

¶39

 for the claimant to claim an amount in a reference
 under section 18 of the said Act which is higher than
 amount claimed by him in response to notice under
 section 9 of the said Act. The embargo against
 claiming an amount higher than what was claimed in
 response to notice under section 9 was removed by the
 amendment to section 25 effected by the Act No.68 of
 1984.

¶40

 7. A reference will have to be made to the
 decision of the Apex Court in the case of Land

¶41

 ... 8 ...

¶42

 Acquisition Officer Vs. B.V. Reddy and Sons (Supra).
 The Apex Court formulated five questions for
 consideration which read thus:

¶43

 "(1) Can the provision of Section 25 of the Land
 Acquisition Act be construed to be
 procedural in nature or substantive?

¶44

 (2) If it is held to be substantive in nature,

¶45

 then can the amended provisions of Section
25 of the Act apply to a case where the
award of the Land Acquisition Collector had
been made much prior to the amendment in
question?

¶46

 (3) Whether the judgment of this Court in
 Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Case can be
 held to be correctly decided?

¶47

 (4) Whether at all it would be appropriate for
 this Court to lay down the law and yet not
 interfere with the judgment of the Division
 Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court with

¶48

 regard to the quantum of compensation

¶49

 awarded?

¶50

 ... 9 ...

¶51

 (5) Whether the petition under Article 32 can
 be entertained for deciding the validity of
 the unamended provisions of Section 25?"
 (Emphasis supplied)

¶52

 8. The Apex Court while answering the first
 question held that provision of section 25 of the said
 Act is not a procedural provision but it is a
 substantive provision. In paragraph No.5 of the
 decision, the Apex Court has observed that in the case
 before it the award under section 11 of the said Act
 was made between 30th September, 1982 to 24th
 September, 1984. The second question formulated by
 the Apex Court is decided in paragraph No.6. The
 relevant portion of paragraph No.6 reads thus:

¶53

 "In that view of the matter, question of
applicability of the amended provisions of
Section 25 of the Act to an award of the
Collector made earlier to the amendment and
the matter was pending in appeal, does not
arise. In our considered opinion, the
amended provisions of Section 25 of the Act,
not being retrospective in nature, the case
in hand would be governed by the unamended
provisions of Section 25 of the

¶54

 ... 10 ...

¶55

Act."(Emphasis supplied)

¶56

 In paragraph No.8 of the decision, the Apex Court held
 as under:

¶57

 "To the case in hand, it is difficult for
 us to apply the aforesaid principle. On
 the date the land was notified for
 acquisition under Section 4(1) of the Act,
 the unamended provision of Section 25 was
 in force and it was made known to all
 concerned that the Reference Court will
 have no power to award the amount in excess
 of the amount claimed by the claimants.
 Not only the language of the statute was
 clear and unambiguous, but also the
 question was not res integra, in view of
 the decision of this Court in Dadu Yogendre
 Nath Singh V. Collector, Seoni. Until the
 statutory rigour contained in sub-section
 (1) of Section 25 stood obliterated by the
 amended provisions of section 25 and until
 all restraints and embargoes placed for the
 court stood totally liberated, the
 Reference Court had no jurisdiction to
 award the amount in excess of the amount

¶58

 ... 11 ...

¶59

 claimed by the claimant."

¶60

 9. It must be noted here that while formulating
 the questions, the Apex Court has formulated the
 second question which will apply to a case where award
 of Land Acquisition Officer has been made prior to
 24th September, 1984. There is no specific question
 framed on applicability of amended section 25 to a
 case where the award under section 11 is made on or
 after 24th September, 1984 i.e. after coming into
 force of the Act No.68 of 1984. In paragraph No.6 of
 the decision, the second question is answered by
 clearly observing that question of applicability of
 the amended provisions of section 25 of the said Act
 to an award of the Collector made earlier to the
 amendment.

¶61

 10. In the case of Dhanaji Kamlu Joshi (supra) the
 award was made under section 11 on 03rd September,
 1986. The second point for consideration framed reads
 thus:

¶62

 "2. Whether the claimant is entitled to
 claim enhancement of compensation
 over and above the amount claimed by
 him in answer to the notice under

¶63

 ... 12 ...

¶64

 Section 9 of the said Act in
 relation to the land acquisition
 proceedings initiated prior to
 24-9-1984 in view of the unamended

¶65

 Section 25 of the said Act?"

¶66

 The Division Bench has answered the second question in
 the negative. In paragraph No.28 of the decision, the
 Division Bench has observed thus:

¶67

 "28. It was sought to be argued that in
 the case in hand the award was admittedly
 passed after 24-9-1984 and therefore the
 question of applicability of the unamended
 Section 25 to the proceedings does not
 arise. It is to be noted that right to
 quantify the compensation is assured to
 the claimant under Section 9 of the said
 Act. Though a declaration under Section 6
 of the said Act amounts to conclusive
 evidence that the land is needed for
 public purpose in terms of sub-section (3)

¶68

 to (6) thereof, however, the claimant is
 entitled to quantify the compensation in

¶69

 answer to the notice under Section 9.

¶70

Once such a right had been matured in

¶71

 ... 13 ...

¶72

favour of the claimant and such right was
exercised by the claimant and the same was
done prior to 24-9-1984, the provisions of
the unamended Section 25 would be
attracted in relation to such proceedings.
In fact, the unamended Section 25 would
invariably apply to all the acquisition
proceedings wherein the Section 4
Notification had been issued prior to the
said date. As already observed above, the

¶73

 declaration under Section 6 is the
 conclusive evidence about the land being
 required for public purpose. But, the
 compensation for land acquired is to be
 assessed on the basis of the market value
 of the land on the day of publication of
 the Notification under Section 4 of the

¶74

 said Act. In other words, the right to
 compensation would be in terms of the
 market value of the land acquired as on
 the day of publication of Notice under

¶75

 Section 4 of the said Act. Being so,
merely because the award therein is passed
after amendment to Section 25 i.e. after
24-9-1984, that will not enure to the
benefit of the claimant to contend that

¶76

 ... 14 ...

¶77

the amended provision of Section 25 would

¶78

apply to his case. As regards the
 quantification of the compensation
 pursuant to the exercise of his right
 under Section 9 read with section 25(1),
 as was in force at the relevant time, the
 provisions of the unamended Section 25
 would get attracted."

¶79

 11. It is apparent that observation of the
 Division Bench in paragraph No.28 of the judgment will
 have direct bearing on the question which is required
 to be decided in this Appeal. In the case of State of
 Maharashtra Vs. Govind Goma Gowari the same Division
 Bench has taken a similar view. My attention is also
 invited to a decision of another Division Bench of
 this Court dated 31st March, 2004 in First Appeal
 No.757 of 2003 (State of Maharashtra Vs. Kamali
 Keshav Mhatre & Ors.). The said Division Bench has
 also considered the provisions of amended section 25
 in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the
 case of Land Acquisition Officer Vs. B.V. Reddy &
 Sons (supra). Paragraph 5 of the said decision of the
 Division Bench reads thus:

¶80

 "5. We then come to the next contention

¶81

 ... 15 ...

¶82

 advanced on behalf of the State that
 considering section 25 as it stood prior to
 its amendment, the claimants who had not
 replied pursuant to notice under section 9,
 claiming market value for the acquired land
 which they were entitled to or had claimed
 at market value at a particular rate, would
 not be entitled to claim market value of
 the acquired land at a higher rate than
 that awarded by the SLAO or more than what
 they themselves had claimed in the reply to
 the notice under section 9.

¶83

 . On behalf of the claimants their
 learned counsel contends that what is to be
 considered in section 25 as it now stands
 and once that be the case and considering
 the language of section 28(A), the Court
 before whom the application under section
 28(A-3) is pending would not be bound by
 the unammended provision of section 25 and
 the Court would be entitled to fix market
 value at a higher rate considering the
 overall provisions.

¶84

 . The provisions of unamended section

¶85

 ... 16 ...

¶86

 25 have been reproduced by the Apex Court
 in the case of Land Acquisition
 Officer-cum-DSWO, A.P. Vs. M/s. B.V.
 Reddy & Sons AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1045.
 Before the Apex Court also the very issue
 which was under consideration before us was
 also in issue. Answering the question
 whether the amended provisions of section
 25 would be retrospective, the Apex Court
 has observed as under:

¶87

 "The amended provision of Section
 25 nowhere indicates that the same
 would have any retrospective
 effect. Consequently, therefore,
 it would apply to all acquisitions
 made subsequent to 24.9.1984, the
 date on which Act 68 of 1984 came
 into force."

¶88

 . Therefore, the provisions of

¶89

 Section 25 as amended would apply to those
 acquisitions which were made subsequent to
 24.9.1984. On behalf of the State, our
 attention was also invited to the Judgment
 of the Apex Court in the case of Ujjain

¶90

 ... 17 ...

¶91

 Vikas Pradhikaran (Ujjain Development
 Authority) Vs. Tarachand and Another
 (1996) 5 Supreme Court Cases 574. The Apex
 Court therein noted that under Section
 25(2) of the Act prior to the Amendment,
 the Court was prohibited to enhance the
 compensation in excess of the amount
 claimed pursuant to the notices issued
 under section 9 and 10 of the Act. Since
 sub-section (2) of section 25 was deleted
 by Amendment Act 68 of 1984, the limitation
 on the exercise of the power of the court
 was taken away. Nonetheless, it would
 always be open to a party to claim a
 particular amount and having claimed at the
 rate, the question arises whether the court
 could grant compensation higher than that
 claimed by the party? Answering the issue
 the court observed that it would be obvious
 that when a party claims compensation at a
 particular rate, he assesses the market
 value of the land at that particular rate
 and seeks compensation on that basis.
 Having assessed the compensation at that
 particular rate, the question emerges
 whether the court could grant higher

¶92

 ... 18 ...

¶93

 compensation than was assessed by the
 party. The court held that in such
 situation the court could not grant
 compensation then what was sought for by
 the party.

¶94

 . It is therefore clear that it will
not be open to the court to consider the
provisions of section 25 as amended in
those appeals where the awards were made
before the amendment. The question then
 would be whether on this court the State’s
 appeal will have to be allowed and the
 market value as granted will have to be set
 aside."

¶95

 The view taken by the said Division Bench appears to
 be that amended section 25 will not apply where the
 awards under section 11 were made before 24th
 September, 1984. The Division Bench has in terms held
 that the provisions of section 25 as amended would
 apply to those acquisitions which were made subsequent
 to 24th September, 1984.

¶96

 12. There is a very recent decision of the Apex
 Court which deals with the same question. The

¶97

 ... 19 ...

¶98

 decision of the Apex Court is in the case of
 Shantadevi Ruparel(supra). The said case was decided
 very recently on 06th March, 2006 i.e. after the
 decisions of the Division Bench of this Court which
 were referred to above. In the decision of the Apex
 Court it is observed as under:

¶99

 " Learned counsel appearing on behalf
 of the respondent- Authority has, however,
 relied upon a decision of this Court in
 Union of India vs. Pramod Gupta by Lrs. &
 Ors. reported in 2005(12) SCC 1, and in
 particular paragraph 1,3 and 4 thereof. In
 that decision, the Court held that the
 claimants were bound by their own pleadings
 and that they could not be granted more
than what they have asked for in their
claim to the Land Acquisition Officer under
Sec. 25 of the Land Acquisition Act as it
stood prior to its amendment.

¶100

. As has been rightly contended by
the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant in that case the acquisition
proceedings had taken place much prior to
the amendment of Sec.25 and 28-A of the

¶101

 ... 20 ...

¶102

Act. It was pointed out that in this
particular case although the Notification
was prior to the date of the amendment,
both the Award as well as the Reference
Court decision were much subsequent
thereto.

¶103

. Under Section 25 as amended in 1984
there is no maximum amount which is
awardable by way of compensation by the
Court. The previous embargo of the Court
not of over-step the limit of the claimants
claim has been removed by the amendment.
Additionally, under section 28-A it is
possible for even the Collector to
redetermine the compensation payable on the
basis of the Award of the Court.

¶104

 . Having regard to the wording of
 Secs.25 and 28-A after the 1984 Amendment
 we are of the view that the appellant is
 entitled for the same rate as has been
 granted by the same High Court in a
 decision of a coordinated bench in the case
 of Nama Padu Hudar v/s. State of
 Maharashtra through the Special Land

¶105

 ... 21 ...

¶106

 Acquisition Officer in First appeal
 No.754/86 judgment dated 25 & 26 February,
 1993. It is not in dispute that the said
 decision was challenged by the
 respondent-Authority but the special leave
 petition was dismissed by this Court. The
 appeals are disposed of by directing the
 respondent-Authority to grant the
 appropriate compensation on the basis of
 the decision of the High Court in Huda’s
 case to the appellant." (Emphasis supplied)

¶107

 13. The Apex Court did not accept the argument
 based on bar created by section 25 (unamended) and
 proceeded to direct that the claimant will be entitled
 to enhanced compensation in accordance with the
 decision of the Division Bench of this court in the
 case of Nama Padu Hudar. The Apex Court rejected the
 argument of the Respondent based on unamended section
 25 though notification under section 4 was prior to
 the amendment.

¶108

 14. What has been held by the Apex Court in the
 case of Shantadevi Ruparel is that section 25 as it
 stood prior to the amendment will not apply in a case
 where the award of Land Acquisition Officer is

¶109

 ... 22 ...

¶110

 subsequent to the amendment. The Apex Court has in
 terms held that previous embargo on court of not over
 stepping the limit of claimant’s claim has been
 removed by the amendment. The Apex Court in the case
 of Shantadevi Ruparel (supra) has referred to the
 decision in case of Union of India Vs. Pramod Gupta
 reported in 2005(12) Supreme Court Cases Page 14. In
 the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of
 India v/s. Pramod Gupta, a reference has been made to
 its earlier decision in case of Land Acquisition
 Officer Vs. B.V. Reddy(supra). In the case of Union
 of India Vs. Pramodkumar, the Award under Section 11
 of the said Act was made in the year 1967. Therefore,
 it was held that unamended Section 25 will apply.
 However, in the present case the question of
 applicability of the Shantadevi Ruparel’s case will
 not arise in view of what has been held by me in later
 part of the judgment.

¶111

 15. Turning back to the facts of the case, in the
 present Appeal the award under section 11 itself notes
 that claim at the rate of Rs.20 per sq. yards (about
 Rs.23/- per sq. meter) was made by the Appellant in
 response to the notice under section 9 of the said
 Act. The decision in the case of Nama Padu
 Hudar(supra) has been approved by the Apex Court in

¶112

 ... 23 ...

¶113

 the case of Shantadevi Ruparel(supra). The Division
 Bench in the case of Nama Padu Hudar (supra) was in
 respect of the lands situated at village Panvel and
 Kamothe which were notified for acquisition on 03rd
 February, 1970 for the same public purpose of
 development of city of Navi Mumbai. There is no
 reason why the said decision should not be followed in
 this case. Therefore, it will have to be ascertained
 as to in which of the five categories in the case of
 Nama Padu Hudar (supra), the present case will fall.
 The Respondent-claimant examined one Jeevan Narayan
 Kulkarni as expert valuer. His report has been
 exhibited as Exhibit 32. In paragraph No.1 of the
 report he has stated that the Bombay-Pune highway is
 at a distance of 880 meters from the acquired lands.
 It is thus obvious that the present case will fall in
 category IV-A which covers cases of lands which are
 situated at a distance of 800 meters to 2000 meters
 from Bombay-Pune National Highway. The market value
 awarded to such cases is Rs.20/- per sq. meter. In
 the present case the same market value will have to be
 awarded. It must be noted here that the claim made by
 the Respondent in response to the notice under section
 9 is Rs.20/- per sq. yards which is equivalent to
 Rs.23/- per sq. meter. Therefore, even if unamended
 section 25 of the said Act is to apply, the

¶114

 ... 24 ...

¶115

 cross-objection of the Respondent will have to be
 allowed by awarding market value at the rate of
 Rs.20/- per sq. meter.

¶116

 16. Hence, I pass the following order:

¶117

 (i) First Appeal No.1072 of 1989 is dismissed.
 The Appellant will pay costs of the Appeal to

¶118

 the Respondent.

¶119

 (ii) Cross-objection filed by the Respondent is
 allowed. The impugned judgment and award is
 modified. The Respondent is entitled to
 market value at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq.
 meter together with statutory benefits under
 section 23(1A), section 23(2) and section 28
 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The
 Respondent-claimant will be also entitled to
 proportionate costs of the reference
 proceedings from the State Government.

¶120

 (iii) The Appellant will pay proportionate costs of

¶121

 the cross-objection to the Respondent.

¶122

 (iv) Reference court will calculate the amount of
 compensation payable to the Respondent within
 period of four months from the date on which

¶123

 ... 25 ...

¶124

 writ of this order is received by it.

¶125

JUDGE

The State of Maharashtra v. Hari Dattu Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Hari Dattu Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Shahjahan Gulfam Shamani Vs Vinod Kumar Takhatmal Kachhara and 2 Ors.

ashfaq haq khan Vs the muncipal corporation of gr. bombay and 4 Ors.

Motichandra Raghunath Ahir Vs Maitibai Moreshwar Raut and 5 Ors.

Life Insurcance Corpn. of India Vs Mrs. S. G. Solanki and Anr.

Parasnath S. Mishra and Ors. ' Vs Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd.

Khadi and Village Industrie Commission Vs Ms. S.B. Mohite and Ors.