Partly allowed

Shri Govind Bansilal Dhoot v. the State.of Maha.

Bombay HC18 Jun 2012FA/207/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this first appeal concerning land acquisition, the High Court modified the Reference Court's order. The Court held that since Bagayat land in the area was sold at Rs.25,000 per acre, the appellant is entitled to compensation at that rate instead of the awarded Rs.20,000 per acre.

What did the court decide?

The Reference Court's award of compensation was modified to fix the rate at Rs.25,000 per acre for the acquired land.

Shri Govind Bansilal Dhoot Vs the State.of Maha. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 F.A.No.207/2002.

¶2

UNREPORTED

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT

¶4

BOMBAY

¶5

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶6

FIRST APPEAL NO.207 OF 2002

¶7

Govind S/o Bansilal Dhoot,
Age 29 years, Occ.Agril.
and Business, R/o Naichakur,
At present Latur.

¶8

... Appellant.

¶9

Versus

¶10

The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector, Latur.... Respondent.

¶11

Mr.R.F.Totala, advocate for the appellant.
Mr.K.G.Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State.

¶12

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.

¶13

 Date : 18.06.2012.

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶15

1.Heard.

¶16

2.This appeal is directed against the

¶17

2 F.A.No.207/2002.

¶18

judgment of the Reference Court, being
dissatisfied with the non-grant of total amount
of compensation as claimed by the claimant.

¶19

3.The land of the claimant was acquired.
The notification U/s 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act was issued on 17.4.1985. The Reference Court
awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/-
per acre. The claimant claimed compensation at
the rate of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand)
per acre.

¶20

4.Mr.Totala, learned counsel for the
appellant submits that there is evidence on
record which is even accepted by the Reference
Court that the land acquired is a Bagayat land
and the lands were sold at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees
twenty five thousand) per acre. The sale deed on
record is of the year 1982 for Rs.25,000/- per
acre and 10% increase every year is required to
be considered and and the claimant would be
entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/- per
acre.

¶21

3 F.A.No.207/2002.

¶22

5.Mr.Patil, learned Asstt.Govt. Pleader
submits that the Reference Court has properly
considered all the aspects of the matter. The
nature of the land and the prevailing market
rate. No error is committed by the Reference
Court.

¶23

6.The Reference Court has given a

¶24

categorical finding that the land acquired is a
Bagayat land. The Court has also observed that
the Bagayat land in the said area was sold at Rs.
25,000/- per acre. No reasons are given by the
Reference Court for not granting compensation at
the rate of Rs.25,000/- per acre. Exh.22 the
sale deed of the land of adjoining village is
produced on record. The Reference Court had
come to the conclusion that the prevailing
market rate was Rs.25,000/- per acre, I do not
see any impediment in allowing compensation at
the rate of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five
thousand) per acre.

¶25

7.In the result, the appeal is partly
allowed. The order of the Reference Court to the

¶26

4 F.A.No.207/2002.

¶27

extent of granting compensation at the rate of
Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) per acre is
modified and it is held that the appellant is
entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.
25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) per acre
of his acquired portion of land. Save and except
the above, the rest of the order passed by
Reference Court is sustained and upheld.

¶28

 (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

¶29

asp/office/Fa207.02

Shri Govind Bansilal Dhoot v. the State.of Maha.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Govind Bansilal Dhoot v. the State.of Maha.

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

Nagnath Dadarao Patil Vs Dr.Purshottam Bhikulal Agrwal

Laxmanbhai Mohanbhai Patel and Anr. Vs K.P.Netesan Pumalay and Ors.

Vijaykumar Narhari Deshpande Vs the State of Maharashtra

Digambar Ramrao Deshpande Vs the Divisional Controller, Msrtc, Parbhani

Santosh Vithal Shelke Vs Noushad Siddiqui @ Naoushad Ahmed Irshad Ahmed Siddiqui and Anr.

Bhanudas Tukaram Kolpe and Anr. Vs Satish Mahipati Kolpe U/G Ratnamala Mahipati Kolpe and Ors.