Allowed

Samarth Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. through Its Managing Director Bajirao Tukarm Pawase v. the Union of India and Others

Bombay HC3 May 2016WP/1602/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that land acquired under the National Highways Act, where the award was passed after 1.1.2015, must have compensation computed per the 2013 Act. The respondent authority was directed to re-determine the amount and pay the difference after adjusting amounts already received within six months.

What did the court decide?

Respondent authority to re-determine compensation as per 2013 Act and pay the difference after adjusting amounts already paid within six months.

Samarth Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. through Its Managing… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

38 sr. no..odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1602 OF 2016

¶5

SAMARTH SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD. THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

¶6

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S.S. Tope Advocate for respondent No.1 : Mr. S.B. Deshpande, ASG AGP for respondent Nos.3 and 5 :Mr. N.B. Patil Advocate for respondent No.2 : Mr. Talhar with Mr. Manorkar

¶7

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA & K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.

¶8

DATE : 3^rd May, 2016.

¶9

PER COURT:

¶10

1] Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties.

¶11

2] Mr. Tope, learned counsel submits that the award has been passed on 31^st August, 2015, in respect of the land owned by the petitioner which was acquired under the National highways Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 105 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 has been amended. Learned counsel submits that by virtue of the said amendment, provisions of the Act of 2013 are made applicable to the acquisition under the National Highways Act as and from 1.1.2015. As such, the compensation to be paid to such acquisition would be computed as per the Act of 2013.

¶12

2] We have heard Mr. Talhar and Mr. Manorkar for the National Highways Authority.

¶13

38 sr. no..odt

¶14

{2}

¶15

3] It is not disputed that the land of the petitioner has been acquired under the National Highways Act and the award is passed on 31^st August 2015 as per Section 3(g) of the National Highways Act. On perusal of the award it is manifest that the compensation has not been computed as per the Act of 2013. As the award has been passed after 1.1.2015, compensation even in respect of acquisition under the National Highways Act has to be computed as per the Act of 2013. It is submitted that the amount under the award is already received by the petitioner. Naturally, the amount already paid will have to be adjusted while calculating the difference of the amount of compensation to be paid .

¶16

4] In the result, we pass the following order :-

¶17

[a] Respondent authority shall re-determine the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner for the land acquired vide award dated 31^st August,2015, as per the Act of 2013. The difference of the amount shall be paid to the petitioner, after adjusting the amount already paid.

¶18

[b] The said exercise would be done expeditiously by the respondents, preferably within six months.

¶19

[c] Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs..

¶20

[K.K. SONAWANE,J.]

¶21

[S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J]

¶22

grt/-

Samarth Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. through Its Managing Director Bajirao Tukarm Pawase v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samarth Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. through Its Managing Director Bajirao Tukarm Pawase v. the Union of India and Others

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

Sopan Ganpati Ingale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prashant Shrikisan Agarwal Vs through Secretary Government of India and Others

Yogesh Kesharlal Manudhane and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vasant Hiraman Nerkar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anothers

Kiran Balaji Kulkarni Vs City and Industrial Development Corporation through Its Administrator Aurangabad

Vinay Laxmikant Barhale Vs City Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. through Its Administrator and Others