Partly allowed

V.I.D.C. Thr. Exe. Engineer v. Mahadeo S/O Bhikaji Chate and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC2 May 2011FA/1170/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge allowed condonation of delay in two civil applications. In six related first appeals arising from land acquisition, the court partly allowed appeals by relying on a prior collegium decision. It modified whimsical awards and reduced compensation to Rs. 1,00,000 per hectare with statutory benefits, allowing the appellant to withdraw excess payments.

What did the court decide?

Compensation fixed at Rs. 1,00,000 per hectare; excess amount to be withdrawn by appellant.

V.I.D.C. Thr. Exe. Engineer Vs Mahadeo S/O Bhikaji Chate and… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶3

FIRST APPEAL NO.1146/2010

¶4

Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, Through its Executive Engineer ...Versus... Dashrath s/o Yadavrao Jadhav Dead Therefore through L.R. Smt. Indubai wd/o Dashrath Jadhav and others

¶5

FIRST APPEAL NO.931/2010

¶6

Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, Through its Executive Engineer

¶7

...Versus...
Gulab Ashru Kakde and others

¶8

FIRST APPEAL NO.1232/2010

¶9

Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, Through its Executive Engineer

¶10

...Versus...

¶11

Santosh Sudhakar Kulkarni and others

¶12

FIRST APPEAL NO.1170/2010

¶13

Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, Through its Executive Engineer

¶14

...Versus...

¶15

Mahadeo s/o Bhikaji Chate and others

¶16

CIVIL APPLICATION F. NO.1236/2010
IN

¶17

FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.20765/2009

¶18

Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, Through its Executive Engineer

¶19

...Versus...

¶20

Ramrao Balaji Sose and others

¶21

AND

¶22

CIVIL APPLICATION F. NO.1254/2010

¶23

IN

¶24

FIRST APPEAL ST. NO.2242/2010

¶25

Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation, Through its Executive Engineer

¶26

...Versus...

¶27

Harichandra Dattatryaya Bondre and others

¶28

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶29

¶30

 [Shri A.B. Patil, Adv. for appellant in all appeals]
 [Shri M.A. Kadu, AGP for respdt. Nos.2 and 3 in
 F.A. Nos. 1146/2010, 931/2010 & 1232/2010]
 [Mrs. M.H. Deshmukh, AGP for respdt. Nos.2 & 3 in
 F.A. No.1170/2010, C.A.F. No.1236/2010 in F.A.St. No.
 20765/09 & C.A.F. No.1254/2010 in F.A. St. No.2242/10]

¶31

CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 2.05.2011.

¶32

Heard on Civil Application Nos.1236/2010
and 1254/2010 for condonation of delay.

¶33

Having heard learned Counsel for the
applicant in both applications and having gone
through the contents of the applications, I find
that good and sufficient grounds exist for
condoning the delay. Hence, delay is condoned.
Civil Application Nos.1236/2010 and 1254/2010 are
allowed.

¶34

Heard on First Appeal Nos.1146/2010,
931/2010, 1232/2010, 1170/2010, First Appeal St.
No.20765/2009 and 2242/2010.

¶35

Learned Counsel for the appellant in all
appeals submits that the decision in the case of

¶36

Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation,

¶37

Deulgaon-Raja...Versus...Kamlaji Balaji Jadhav and
others, reported in 2011 (1) Mh.L.J. 231 covers
the instant appeals as these appeals arise out of
the same subject matter.

¶38

None appears for respondent No.1.

¶39

I have gone through the said judgment in
the case ofVidarbha Irrigation Development

¶40

¶41

Corporation, Deulgaon-Raja (supra), cited by the
learned Counsel for the appellant. Agreeing with
the view taken by the Single Judge of this Court
in the said judgment respectfully, these appeals
are disposed of with the following order.

¶42

O R D E R

¶43

(i)FirstAppealNos.1146/2010,
931/2010, 1232/2010, 1170/2010, First Appeal
St. No.20765/2009 and First Appeal St.
No.2242/2010 are partly allowed.

¶44

(ii)The impugned judgments and awards
made by the reference Court are modified. It is
held that the respondents would be entitled to
compensation @ Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only)
per hectare with all statutory benefits and not at
the rates at which the enhanced compensation has
been granted by the reference Court.

¶45

(iii)In First Appeal Nos.1146/2010 and
931/2010, the appellant � V.I.D.C., as a sequel to
these modified awards, shall be entitled to
withdraw the excessamount to be computed as per
the judgments and awards modified by this Court.

¶46

No order as to costs.

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

ssw

V.I.D.C. Thr. Exe. Engineer v. Mahadeo S/O Bhikaji Chate and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.I.D.C. Thr. Exe. Engineer v. Mahadeo S/O Bhikaji Chate and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.I.D.C., Thr Exe. Eng. Chikhli Vs Ramrao Govindrao More and Other

Smt. Prabhawati Wd/O Yadavrao Nardange and 3 Ors. Vs Smt. Kisanabai Wd/O Shalikram Pohankar and 2 Ors.

The New India Assurance Com. Ltd. Thr. Branch Manager Gondia Vs Gautam S/O Aadku Gaure and Oths

Suraj S/O Madhukar Rode and Other Vs Collector, Yavatmal and Ors.

The Branch Manager, the United India Insurance Vs Vanmala Balkrishna Kamble and 5 Others

V.I.D.C. Thr. Exe. Engineer Vs Gulab Ashru Kakde and 2 Ors.