Dismissed

State of Maharashtra. v. Ramesh Rama Patil and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Sept 2007FA/817/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed multiple first appeals filed by The State of Maharashtra challenging the grant of enhanced compensation at Rs. 10 per sq. meter/sqm in land acquisition cases within Thane District, finding no reason to disturb the lower courts' findings.

What did the court decide?

The appeals filed by the Appellant State of Maharashtra were dismissed.

State of Maharashtra. Vs Ramesh Rama Patil and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

Lsp

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO. 812 OF 1993

¶4

The State of Maharashtra ..Appellant v/s. Shri Rama Kalya Patil-by his legal heirs - 1. Anant Rama Patil & Ors. ..Respondents ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 814 OF 1993 The State of Maharashtra ..Appellant v/s. Harischandra Hira Patil & others ..Respondents ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 816 OF 1993 The State of Maharashtra ..Appellant v/s. Shri Parashuram Bhiwa Patil ..Respondents ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 817 OF 1993 The State of Maharashtra ..Appellant v/s. Ramesh Rama Patil & others. ..Respondents ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 818 OF 1993 The State of Maharashtra ..Appellant v/s. Shri Ambaji Bhalchandra Mhatre ..Respondents Mr.S.N. Gawade, AGP for the Appellant Mr. K.N.Kore for Respondent

¶5

¶6

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED : 17th September, 2007

¶7

P.C.

¶8

This	Co	urt by	order	dated	17-1-2	005	in	First	Appeal
no.	1132	of	1994	between	State	of		Maharashtra	v/s.
Rajaram	and	further	in	first appeal	no.		512	of	1992
State	of	Maharashtra		v/s.	Sa	danand		Patil	dated
21-12-2005		have dis	missed	all	the	State		appeals	whereby

¶9

the challenge was made to the grant of enhancement of

¶10

compensation at the rate of Rs. 10/- per sq.feet.

¶11

Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the

¶12

parties.	Both the par	ties fairly	pointe	d	out	that	the
judgment	passed by this	Court in	the		above	cases	covers
the facts	and circumstances	of the	pres	ent	case	s also	as
lands are	identically	placed and	situat	ed	i	n	village
Koparkhairane	which is	in Taluka	and		District	Thane	and
the land	acquisition re	ferences arisi	ng	ou	t of	the	same
dispute and	in the same	villages	have		been	duly	assessed

¶13

and this Court in all those matters has maintained the

¶14

compensation at the rate of Rs. 10/- per square meter.

¶15

3.	The	refore, taking no	te of all these factors as	well
as	facts	and	circumstances	of the	case	and	as	the
enhanced	c	ompensation	as awarded	is	just	and	fair,	there
is	no	reason to	disturb the	findings	arrived	at	by	the

¶16

¶17

Learned trial Court and especially when there is no cross objection filed by the claimant.

¶18

Resultantly, all the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶19

[ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.]

State of Maharashtra. v. Ramesh Rama Patil and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Maharashtra. v. Ramesh Rama Patil and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.T.C. Movers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Zubi Shipping Pvt.Ltd.

Rishi Ship Breakers Vs Ladam Steels Ltd.

R.v.Kamath Vs Siddhivinayak Chemicals P.Ltd.

Prakash Laxman Chanderkar Vs Smt. Anandibai Laxman Chanderkar and Ors.

State of Maharashtra. Vs Parashuram Bhiwa Patil.

State of Maharashtra. Vs Harishchandra Hira Patil and Anr.