Partly allowed

Prasad Padmprabhu Zade and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC1 Dec 2014WP/3990/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition arose from land acquisition for a water storage tank where compensation was insufficient due to escalated project costs. The High Court directed the State to expedite approval for the increased demand and release the due amount within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direct the Respondents to expedite approval for increased compensation and release the due amount within three months; acceptance shall not preclude challenging the exercise.

Prasad Padmprabhu Zade and Others Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp399014.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3990 OF 2014

¶4

Prasad s/o Padmaprabhu Zade & others

¶5

Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & others

¶8

Respondents

¶9

Mr.S.B.Joshi, advocate with Mr.S.B.Deshpande, advocate for petitioners. Mr.K.M.Suryawanshi, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 3.

¶10

CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI &

¶11

A.M.BADAR, JJ. DATE : 01st December, 2014

¶12

PER COURT:

¶13

1 Heard learned Counsel for petitioners and learned A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 3. Perused reply.

¶14

2 Grievance is, land of petitioners has been taken in possession in the year 2007 for construction of water storage tank, however, they have not been paid proper compensation till date.

¶15

3 Learned A.G.P. submits that when award has been made under Land Acquisition Act, compensation roughly worked out at Rs.103.54 lacs was found insufficient. The amount required to meet the liability on account of project cost being escalated works out to Rs.319.22 lacs. Because of this increase, sanction of the Government is again sought in July 2013. He submits that within reasonable time, the State Government will take necessary decision.

¶16

4 Advocate Shri Deshpande submits that enormous increase is only on account of charges payable to the Contractor and land owners are being made to suffer for it.

¶17

wp399014.odt

¶18

{2}

¶19

5 We have perused the reply. Paragraph 6 of the reply shows that 80% of the compensation amount was paid to petitioners on the date of award. It is further pointed out that amount of compensation is increased by Rs.285.68 lacs.

¶20

6 In this situation, without recording any finding on disputed questions, we direct the Respondents to expedite process of granting approval to the increase demand of compensation and complete it within a period of three months from today. The amount becoming due and payable shall be then released to respective petitioners within further period of three months. Acceptance of such amount by petitioners shall not preclude them from challenging correctness of the exercise undertaken.

¶21

7 With these directions, writ petition is partly allowed and disposed of.

¶22

A.M.BADAR B.P.DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE JUDGE

¶23

adb/wp399014

Prasad Padmprabhu Zade and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasad Padmprabhu Zade and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narharrao Alias Narhari Govindrao Bhoomkar Died Thro. Lrs. Suresh Narharrao Bhoomkar and Others Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Ramhari Balasaheb Ghadge and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The Grampanchayat Jambhala, Group Grampanchayat and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Div. Nanded Vs Datta Ramrao Deshmukh and Ors.

Kamal Janardhan Munde Vs the Union of India and Others

K S a Javed Shakir Ismail Shakir Vs Afsaribegum Sayyed Ejaz Ahmed and Ors.