Disposed

Balaji Babasaheb Veer v. the Union of India and Others

Bombay HC28 Sept 2016WP/7594/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the acquisition of his land for a National Highway, arguing compensation under the 2013 Act was not applied. The Court, noting the respondents agreed to the difference in amount, surprised the petitioner's grievance and directed payment within three months. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to determine compensation according to the first schedule of the Act of 2013 and pay the difference within three months.

Balaji Babasaheb Veer Vs the Union of India and Others — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp 7594.16.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.7594 OF 2016

¶5

Balaji Babasaheb Veer Petitioner Versus Union of India and others Respondents

¶6

Mr.R.A. Deshmukh advocate for the petitioner Mr.S.G. Karlekar, AGP for Respondent No.4 State Mr.S.B.Deshpande, ASG for respondent No.1 Mr. D.S. Manorkar h/f M.V.Kini & Co. advocate for respondent No.2

¶7

CORAM : R.M. BORDE &

¶8

K.K. SONAWANE, JJ

¶9

(Date : 28th September, 2016.)

¶10

PER COURT :-

¶11

1 Land belonging to petitioner has been acquired for the construction of National Highway. It is informed that, the respondents have declared the Award on 14.1.2009 and amount of compensation has been disbursed. While determining the amount of compensation, according to the petitioner, the provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation & Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (herein after referred to as, “the Act of 2013” for the sake of brevity) have not been made applicable and the Award has been declared in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition

wp 7594.16.odt

{2}

Act of 1894.

2 It is not controverted by the respondents that, the determination of the amount of compensation is not in accordance with the Act of 2013. It is specifically averred by the respondents in the affidavit in reply presented on record that, the office of the answering respondent is ready to pay the difference in amount of compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013.

¶16

3 In view of the statement made on oath in the affidavit in reply presented on behalf of the respondents, the substantial grievance raised in the petition stands redressed. The respondents shall determine the amount of compensation in observance of the provisions of the first schedule of the Act of 2013 and shall pay the amount or difference, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from today.

¶17

4 Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶18

(K.K. SONAWANE, J) (R.M.BORDE, J)

¶19

vbd

Balaji Babasaheb Veer v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balaji Babasaheb Veer 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

Mohammed Asad Ahmed and Anothers Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The Commissioner,Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Nashik-Ii Commissionerate Vs M/S Somaiya Organo Chemicals

Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad Vs M/S Somaiya Organo Chemicals Ltd. Sakarwadi

Laxmikant Dashrath Turatwad Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Rajaram Ambadas Magar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohammed Sajid Irfan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others