Partly allowed

State of Maharashtra. v. Damodar Ramchandra Patil.

Bombay HC28 Jan 2011FA/702/1992

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed an appeal challenging a Lower Land Acquisition Reference Court's award of Rs. 8/sq.m. referencing a court decision that fixed the same location's value at Rs. 12/sq.m. The present application for modification was partly allowed, directing the award increased to Rs. 12/sq.m. plus statutory benefits.

What did the court decide?

Cross Objection partly allowed; Judgment and Award modified to award Rs. 12/sq.m. plus statutory benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2), and 28; three months granted for deposit of balance.

State of Maharashtra. Vs Damodar Ramchandra Patil. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

1 fa702-92,588-95

¶2

I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

rpa

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO. 702 OF 1992

¶5

The State of Maharashtra ] Through the Special land ] Acquisition Officer, Metro Centre ] No. 7, New Panvel, ] .. Appellant. District – Raigad. ] (Orig. Opponent)

¶6

V/s. Shri Damodar Ramchandra Patil, ] Adult, Residing at – Ulva, ] .. Respondent Taluka Panvel, District – Raigad. ] (Orig. Claimant)

¶7

ALONGWITH

¶8

FIRST APPEAL NO. 588 OF 1995

¶9

AND

¶10

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4700 OF 2006 ALONGWITH CROSS OBJECTION STAMP NO. 798 OF 2008

¶11

The State of Maharashtra ] Through the Special land ] Acquisition Officer, Metro Centre ] No. 7, New Panvel, ] .. Appellant. District – Raigad. ] (Orig. Opponent)

¶12

V/s. Gajanan Babu Bhoir ] Since deceased through his LR's ] 1) Sunny Gajanan Bhoir ] Age – 13 years. ] 2) Pallavi Gajanan Bhoir, ] Age – 12 years. ] Nos. 1 and 2 being minors, ] Through their guardian ]

¶13

	2 fa702-92,588-95
Balu Pandurang Bhoir,	]
Age – 45 years, Residing at	].. Respondent
Village Ulve, Taluka Panve,	] (Orig. Claimant)
District – Raigad	]

¶14

Mr. A.R.Patil, AGP for appellant in both the Appeals. Mr. Rajiv Patil, for respondents in First Appeal No. 588 of 1995.

¶15

CORAM : A. S. OKA, J.

¶16

DATE : JANUARY 28, 2011.

¶17

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

¶18

These Appeals can be disposed of by passing common Judgment.

¶19

The challenge in the appeals is to the Judgments and Awards under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) passed by the Reference Court. The References under section 18 were made at the instance of the respondents in the Appeals. The lands subject matter of acquisition are situated at Village Uvle, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad which were notified for the acquisition under Section 4 of the said Act on 3^rd February, 1970. The purpose of acquisition was of establishing a satellite city of New Bombay. As the respondents-claimants were not satisfied with the amounts

¶20

3 fa702-92,588-95

¶21

offered by the Awards under Section 11 of the said Act, at their instance, References under section 18 had been made. By the impugned Judgments and Awards, the Reference Court granted market value of Rs.8/- per square meter.

¶22

The submission of the learned AGP appearing for the appellant State of Maharashtra is that in absence of any evidence of comparable sale instances, the Reference Court could not have granted enhancement in compensation. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents relied upon a decision of this Court dated 12^th April, 2005 in First Appeal No. 83 of 1992 and First Appeal No. 959 of 1991 and submitted that in case of similarly situated land, this Court has fixed the market value at Rs. 12/- per square meter.

¶23

I have given careful consideration to the submissions. Perusal of the decision of this Court dated 12^th April, 2005 shows that the same related to acquisition of lands at village Ulve which were notified on the same date for the same public purpose. This Court come to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired lands on the relevant date was Rs.12/- per square meter.

¶24

4 fa702-92,588-95

¶25

On 3^rd February, 1970 when the lands in the said village alongwith the lands in several other villages in Taluka Panvel were notified for acquisition , most of the lands subject matter of acquisition were agricultural lands. There is no reason why the decision of this Court dated 12^th April, 2005 should not be applied in the present cases. Hence, First Appeal No. 702 of 1992 and First Appeal No. 588 of 1991, will have to be dismissed and the Cross Objection in First Appeal No. 588 of 1995 will have to be allowed. Hence, I pass the following order :

¶26

:: O R D E R ::

¶27

i. First Appeal No. 702 of 1992 is dismissed with

¶28

no order as to costs.

¶29

ii. First Appeal No. 588 of 1995 is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶30

iii. Civil Application No.4700 of 1996 does not survive and the same is disposed of.

¶31

5 fa702-92,588-95

¶32

iv. Cross Objection Stamp No. 798 of 1995, is partly allowed and the Judgment and Award dated 28^th February, 1992, passed in Land Acquisition Reference No. 494 of 1987 is modified. The claimants therein will be entitled to the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 12/- per square meter.

¶33

v. In addition to the market value, the claimants in the said reference will be entitled to statutory benefits under Section 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Reference Court will determine the compensation payable in terms of the modified Award within a period of three months from the date on which writ of the Judgment is received by the said Court.

¶34

vi. The claimants in land acquisition Reference No. 494 of 1987, will be entitled to proportionate

¶35

costs of the Reference and the Cross Objection.

¶36

6 fa702-92,588-95

¶37

vii. Time of three months are granted to the State Government to deposit the balance compensation amount from the date on which compensation is determined by the Reference Court.

¶38

JUDGE

State of Maharashtra. v. Damodar Ramchandra Patil.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Maharashtra. v. Damodar Ramchandra Patil.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivaji Kondiba Kakade Vs Maharashtra State Electiricity Distribution Co. Ltd.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Rambhau Shankar Shelake and Anr.

Inderjit Kaur Matharu Vs Revolan Campos

Alli Hasan Mohammad Saif Khan Vs Safia Begum Abdul Aziz Khan and Anr.

Smt. Draupadi Bhaskar Parab Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Yallayya Bhumayya Gentyal Vs Narsayya Bhumayya Gentyal