Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra v. Gopal Vishnu Mulay Since (Deceased) by Heirs.

Bombay HC8 Jan 2007FA/234/1988

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge dismissed the first appeal in a land acquisition reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The appeal was held to be non-survivable against other respondents due to abatement against one and dismissal against others, thereby considering no reference made.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Gopal Vishnu Mulay Since… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO.234 OF 1988

¶4

 The State of Maharashtra...Appellant
vs.
1.Gopal Vishnu Mulay
 (since deceased by his heirs)
 1-A Shashikala aGopal Mulay
 1-B Avinash Gopal Mulay
 1-C Suhas Gopal Mulay
 1-D Shailaja Manohar Shukla
 1-E Surekha Chandrakant Thombre
 1-F Yogini Anil Buwa
 1-G Nilesh Gopal Mulay
 2. Manohar Ramchandra Shukla
 3. Murlidhar Laxman Vaidya
 4.Asha Laxman Deshpande
 5.Ravindra Manilal Shah
 6. Vatsala Shankar Bhadan
 (deceased through his heirs)
 6 (i) Rajendra Shankar Bhadan
(ii) Vijay Shankar Bhadan
 (iii) Sanjay Shankar Bhadan
(iv) Sangita Shankar Bhadan
 7. Malati Ramdas Amritkar
 (through holder of Special Power
 of Attorney Shankar Atmaram Bhadan)...Respondents

¶5

Mr.S.N.Gawade,A.G.P. for the Appellant

¶6

 Mr.A.J.Ahuja for Respondent Nos.1-D, 2

¶7

CORAM: A.S.OKA,J.
DATE : JANUARY 8,2007.

¶8

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶9

 1. Heard learned A.G.P. for the Appellant. The Appellant

¶10

 State of Maharashtra has taken exception to the Judgment and
 Award dated 4th April 1987 passed by the learned Joint
 District Judge, Nashik in land acquisition reference No.153 of
 1982.

¶11

 2. By the impugned Judgment and Award, a reference under

¶12

-2-

¶13

section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
 referred to as the said Act) has been allowed and the
 enhancement has been granted in the market value in favour of
 the Respondents. Office noting shows that the Appeal stands
 abated as against the Respondent No.3 and dismissed as against
 the Respondent Nos.5 and 6. Respondent No.3 is the original
 claimant No.3 and the Respondent Nos.5 and 6 are the claimant
 Nos.5 and 6 respectively. By the impugned Judgment and Award,
 the original claimants 3,5 and 6 (Respondent Nos.3,5 and 6
 respectively) along with the other claimants have been held
 entitled to enhanced marked value at the rate fixed by the
 Reference Court.

¶14

 3. Impugned Judgment and Award proceeds on a ground which is
 common to all the Respondents. The Award stands confirmed as
 against Respondent Nos.3,5 and 6. Even if the Appellant
 succeeds in the Appeal, an Award which is inconsistent to the
 Award which is confirmed in favour of the Respondent Nos.3,5
 and 6 will have to be passed. There cannot be such
 inconsistent Awards. Thus, as a result of the abatement of
 the Appeal as against the Respondent No.3 and the dismissal of
 the Appeal against the Respondent Nos.5 and 6, Appeal does not
 survive as against the other Respondents.

¶15

 4. Hence, I pass the following order :

¶16

-3-

¶17

i) Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶18

JUDGE

The State of Maharashtra v. Gopal Vishnu Mulay Since (Deceased) by Heirs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Gopal Vishnu Mulay Since (Deceased) by Heirs.

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

Jinesh Rajendra Bhatt Vs State of Maharashtra

Mr. Devang Vijay Dholakiya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kishor Modi Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs Iranna Chandrashekhar @Shakayya Sambhale

The State of Maharashtra Vs Shri Babu T. Mhatre

The State of Maharashtra Vs Janardhan Dnyanoba Gaikwad