Partly allowed

The Commissioner Nashik Municipal Corporation v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Nov 2007FA/2225/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

First appeal by Nashik Municipal Corporation against land compensation award. Court dismissed specific claims regarding duplicate payment for a grapes garden but clarified calculation of enhanced compensation. Cross-objections by claimants withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Cross-objections dismissed; enhanced compensation to be paid excluding Rs.3,10,780/- already paid.

The Commissioner Nashik Municipal Corporation Vs the State… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

FIRST APPEAL NO.2225 OF 2007

¶3

The Commissioner, Nashik Municipal Corporation, Nashik v/s. The State of Maharashtra and others

¶4

.. Appellant .. Respondents

¶5

Mr. V.A. Gangal for the Appellant. Mr. M.S. Karnik for the respondent Nos.2 to 12. Ms. G.P. Mulekar, Assistant Government Pleader for the State.

¶6

CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & J.P. DEVADHAR, J.

¶7

DATED : 21ST NOVEMBER, 2007

¶8

P.C.

¶9

The present first appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31^st January, 2006, passed by the learned IInd Adhoc Additional District Judge, Nashik. The appropriate Government acquired the land by issuing notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 29^th

¶10

May, 1999. The Collector granted compensation with all statutory benefits to which the claimants were entitled to. A reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was made wherein the claimants had claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.2100 per sq.mtr. The reference was answered on the pleadings of the parties. The learned reference court framed the following issues:

¶11

1.Whether the reference is within limitation?

¶12

2.Do the claimants prove that the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate?

¶13

3.Are the claimants entitled to enhanced compensation? If yes, what shall be the quantum?

¶14

4.What order and Award?

¶15

The learned reference court after considering the evidence on record, hearing the arguments raised by the parties and the sale instances relied upon, granted compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.830.40 per sq. mtr.

¶16

As the land was acquired for the Nashik Municipal Corporation, it has preferred the present appeal challenging the fact that the compensation awarded by the reference court at the rate of Rs.830.40 per sq.mtr. is excessive and is not based upon the evidence on record. On the other hand, the cross-

¶17

objections have also been filed by the claimants praying for further enhancing the amount.

¶18

The thrust of the submissions on behalf of the Corporation is that, there is apparent error in the impugned order in as much as the part of the compensation in regard to the loss of the grapes garden amounting to Rs.3,10,780/- has already been paid by the State to the claimants, but the reference court has once again directed payment of the amount of Rs. 3,10,780/- towards loss of grapes garden. In fact, there is no serious challenge raised before us to the judgment of the reference court on merits. It is primarily on this calculation the dispute has been raised. The learned counsel appearing for the cross-objectors fairly agrees that the compensation in regard to the loss of grapes garden has already been paid to the claimant and he does not press this claim for repayment and concedes to the objections raised by the appellants limited to that extent.

¶19

We have already noticed that there is no serious challenge raised before us either by cross-objectors or by the appellants to the extent of above clarification. Resultantly, both, appeal and cross-objections are disposed of. However, we clarify that the enhanced compensation payable to the claimant as per the reference court order be paid by excluding therefrom

¶20

the amount of Rs.3,10,780/- as also the statutory relief granted pursuant to the said amount of Rs.3,10,780/-

¶21

In the light of this, cross-objections are dismissed as withdrawn as prayed.

¶22

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶23

J.P. DEVADHAR, J.

The Commissioner Nashik Municipal Corporation v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner Nashik Municipal Corporation v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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 Padu Bama Patil and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Padu Bama Patil and Ors.

Wonderpack Industries Pvt.Ltd. Vs Jangbahadur Ramjit Yadav and Anr.

Shaikh Jaibunnisa Abdul Latif and 33 Ors. Vs Niranjan Singh Bajaj and 8 Ors.

Shaikh Jaibunnisa Abdul Latif and 33 Ors. Vs Niranjan Singh Bajaj and 8 Ors.

The Commissioner Nashik Municipal Corporation Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.