Allowed

Baburao Kashinath Reddy v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Apr 2010WP/1889/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition regarding land acquisition, the petitioner claimed he was paid compensation for only 37 acres of his land despite an award for 97 acres. The court allowed the petition and directed the Respondents to pay the unpaid compensation in accordance with the law, accepting an undertaking by the intervener to cover the shortfall. The rule was made absolute as per these terms.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed; Respondents were directed to pay compensation for the un-compensated land in accordance with law. The rule was made absolute.

Baburao Kashinath Reddy Vs the State of Mah and Anr. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

unreproted

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

¶4

BOMBAY

¶5

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.1889 OF 2009.

¶7

Baburao S/o Kashinath Reddy,
Age major, Occ.Agril.,
R/o At Post Dadaji, Tal.
Nilanga,Dist.Latur.

¶8

... Petitioner.

¶9

 Versus

¶10

1. The State of Maharashtra
through Irrigation Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶11

2. Special Land Acquisition,
Latur, Percolation Tank and
Irrigation Tank, Latur.... Respondents.

¶12

Mrs. Netrali N.Gangwal (Jain), advocate for the
petitioner.

¶13

Mr.S.K.Tambe, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State.
Mr.Ruturaj Patil, advocate for the intervener.

¶14

CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND
 : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ.

¶15

 Date : 12.04.2010.

¶16

¶17

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per P.V.Hardas,J.)

¶18

1.Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With
the consent of the learned counsel for the
parties, this petition is heard finally at the
stage of admission.

¶19

2.The present petitioner claims to be the
owner of land at Gat No.7, situated at village
Dadgi, Tal. Nilanga, District Latur. According
to the petitioner, a notification U/s 4(1) of the
Land Acquisition Act came to be issued for
acquisition of the land on 4.10.2001. The land
admeasuring 97 Ares was proposed to be acquired.
Accordingly, declaration U/s 6 came to be issued
and an award came to be passed on 4.5.2002 and
compensation for the area i.e. 97 Ares was shown
to be Rs.1,79,426/- (Rupees One lac seventy nine
thousand four hundred twenty six). The
petitioner, however, states that the petitioner
had been actually paid an amount of Rs.53,600/-
(Rupees fifty three thousand six hundred). On
inquiry being made by the petitioner was informed
by the Respondent No.2 that land to the extent of
37 Ares was required and rest of the 60 Ares

¶20

¶21

land was not required and would be deleted. As
per E statement, that only 37 Ares land was to be
acquired and proposal for deletion of 60 Ares was
forwarded to the competent authority. It appears
that the proposal for deletion of 60 Ares land
has not been approved by the competent
authorities. The net result as on today is that
land admeasuring 97 Ares came to be acquired
while the petitioner has been paid compensation
for land admeasuring 37 Ares.

¶22

3.Undisputedly, the Respondents are
enjoined with the duty of paying compensation to
the petitioner in respect of the land which is
acquired under the award and for which
compensation is specified in the said award. The
Respondents can not escape from their liability
of payment of compensation. Mr.Patil, learned
counsel for the intervener very fairly states
that the remaining compensation i.e. the
compensation in respect of 60 Ares of the land
would be paid by intervener to the petitioner
within four (4) months from today. We accept the
aforesaid statement as an undertaking to the

¶23

¶24

Court.

¶25

4.We accordingly allow this petition and
direct the Respondents to pay the compensation to
the petitioner, in accordance with law, in
respect of the land for which the petitioner has
not been paid the compensation.

¶26

5.Rule is thus made absolute on the above
terms with no order as to costs.

¶27

(S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (P.V.HARDAS,J.)

¶28

asp/office/wp188909

Baburao Kashinath Reddy v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baburao Kashinath Reddy v. the State of Mah and Anr.

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

Madhushree Purushottam Agrawal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prakash Narayandas Rizwani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ora

Ramesh Chandrabhan Gabda Vs the District Magistrate Dhule and Anr.

Bhagwat Ganpat Bhangale and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Moreshwar Builders and Developers Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Dattatrao Bhujangrao Sontakke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.