Petitioners complained that the State failed to deposit enhanced compensation from LA Reference Court orders. Direction was issued for payment within six months and petitions disposed. No other merits discussed.
Direction to respondents to pay the enhanced compensation granted by the Reference Court within six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp2613.14.doc
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2613 OF 2014
Saheba s/o Ganpati Lamb .. PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. Shrikant Kulkarni, advocate for petitioner. Mr. S. G. Karlekar, AGP for the State. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3925 OF 2014 Ramrao s/o Deorao Tandale & others .. PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. Shrikant Kulkarni, advocate for petitioners. Mr. S. G. Karlekar, AGP for the State. mr. B. R. Survase, advocate for respondent no. 4. ===== CORAM : R.M. BORDE & V. L. ACHLIYA, JJ. DATE : 16th JUNE, 2014. PER COURT :
wp2613.14.doc
2
196/2003, 192/2003, 189/2003, 191/2003, 193/2003, 197/2003, 198/2003, 201/2003, 207/2003, 209/2003, 211/2003, 213/2003, 218/2003, 220/2003, 214/2003, 203/2003, 45/2004, 181/2003, 153/2003, 156/2003, 162/2003, 164/2003, 167/2003, 168/2003, 169/2003, 172/2003, 175/2003, 185/2003, 187/2003, 188/2003, 186/2003, 154/2003, 155/2003, 157/2003, 158/2003, 159/2003, 161/2003, 163/2003, 165/2003, 166/2003, 173/2003, 174/2003, 205/2003, 180/2003, 184/2003, 194/2003, 208/2003, 183/2003, 212/2003, 47/2002 and 180/2003. It is not disputed that reference applications have been decided in the year 2010 and direction has been issued by the Reference Court to pay enhanced amount of compensation together with benefits available under Land Acquisition Act. Inspite of consistent efforts by petitioners – claimants for disbursement of enhanced amount of compensation, respondents have not p aid any heed to the request and have not paid the amount of compensation. It has been pointed out that the acquiring body has presented appeals challenging the decision of the Reference Court however, this Court has not granted any interim relief in the first appeals. Directions issued by this Court in respect of deposit of amount have also not been complied with by the acquiring body.
wp2613.14.doc
3
today. Notice issued to respondent no. 4 on 21.4.2014 stands discharged. Both the writ petitions stand disposed of.
( V. L. ACHLIYA ) ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE JUDGE
dyb
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent State is liable to deposit the enhanced compensation amount awarded by the Reference Court.
What direction, if any, the Court should issue for the timely payment of the enhanced compensation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Saheba s/o Ganpati Lamb
Ramrao s/o Deorao Tandale
The State of Maharashtra
R.M. Borde
V. L. Achliya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
