Allowed

Rajesaheb Khabula Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC20 Jul 2016WP/6329/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of two writ petitions regarding unpaid enhanced compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Instead of relegating parties to file an execution petition, the Court directed immediate payment of the award amount within nine months due to the petitioners' status as small agriculturists and the delay since 2009.

What did the court decide?

The respondents were directed to pay the awarded enhancement amount to the petitioners within nine months from the date of the order.

Rajesaheb Khabula Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra and… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 WP/ 6328 /2015+

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 6328 OF 2015

¶4

Abhang S/o Dadarao Karve and anr... Petitioners

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and anr... Respondents

¶7

AND

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 6329 OF 2015

¶9

Rajesaheb S/o Khabula Shaikh.. Petitioner

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The State of Maharashtra and anr... Respondents

¶12

Mr. M.S. Karad, Advocate for the petitioners in both WPs
Mr. B.V. Virdhe, AGP for the respondent/State in both Wps
Respondent no.2 served – absent in both WPs.

¶13

 CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
 K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
 DATE : 20/07/2016

¶14

ORAL ORDER :

¶15

Thoughrespondent no.2 is served in both writ

¶16

petitions, none appears for respondent no.2.

¶17

2.In both these matters, the reference Court has
passed awards under section 18 of the Land Acquisition

¶18

Act granting enhancement of compensation.

¶19

2 WP/ 6328 /2015+

¶20

3.Mr. Karad, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that petitioners are small agriculturists, their
agricultural lands have been acquired for percolation
tank. The reference under section 18 of the Land

¶21

Acquisition Act has been partly allowed in the year
2009, however, the amount is not yet deposited. The
execution is also filed.

¶22

4.We have heard learned AGP also.

¶23

5.In normal course, we relegate the parties for
filing execution, however, considering that the
enhancement granted by reference Court is not much and
petitioners are small agriculturists so also the fact
that apart from their agricultural land, no other source

¶24

of livelihood is there and enhancement is not much and

¶25

since 2009, the amount is not paid, we direct the
respondents to pay the said amount as per the award
passed by the reference Court to the petitioners
expeditiously, preferably within 9 (nine) months from
the date of receipt of this order.

¶26

3 WP/ 6328 /2015+

¶27

6. Both Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed

¶28

of. No costs.

¶29

[K.K. SONAWANE] [S.V. GANGAPURWALA]
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶30

arp/

Rajesaheb Khabula Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesaheb Khabula Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Shankar Hari Tayade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rajiv Gandhi Taxi Union, Latur Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Jayshri Swayam Sahayata Mahila Bachat Gat Through its president Devkabai Sitaram Thakare Vs The State of Maharashtra and others

Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Beed Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Abhang Dadarao Karve and Another Vs State of Maharashtra and Another

Nilgar Denyati Sanstha, Solapur and Another Vs State of Maharashtra and Others