Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Bhagwan Patil

Bombay HC29 Nov 2018FA/557/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this first appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the State sought to reduce compensation awarded at Rs. 10/- per sq.mtr. by relying on evidence of insufficiency. The single judge rejected this challenge, noting a prior Division Bench decision awarded Rs. 25/- per sq.mtr. for the same project, holding the compensation was not permissible to be further reduced.

What did the court decide?

The First Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Prabhakar Bhagwan Patil — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

209.fa.557.1991 .doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO. 557 OF 1991

¶5

The State of Maharashtra Vs.

¶6

Prabhakar Bhagwan Patil

¶7

.. Appellant .. Respondent

¶8

Mr.A.R. Patil, Advocate for applicant/appellant. None for respondent.

¶9

CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. DATE : 29^TH NOVEMBER 2018

¶10

P.C.

¶11

1 This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, referred as 'the said Act') has been preferred by the State challenging the adjudication in Land Acquisition Reference No.528 of 1989 whereby said Reference has been partly allowed by the judgment dated 31^st March 1990 and the claimants have been held entitled to receive compensation @ Rs.10/- per sq.mtr. for the land acquired.

¶12

2 The learned Assistant Government Pleader in support of the Appeal submitted that the evidence led by the claimants before the Reference Court was insufficient for granting compensation @ Rs.10/- per sq.mtr. The Land Acquisition Officer while passing the Award had not taken into consideration all relevant aspects and had awarded higher compensation for the acquired land. The learned counsel sought to rely upon the evidence on record in that regard.

1/2

Shraddha Talekar PS

209.fa.557.1991 .doc

3 It is, however, to be noted that the Division Bench by this Court in The State of Maharashtra (Through the Special Land Acquisition Officer) Vs. Shri Chandrakant Bhiva Patil¹ , while deciding other appeals under Section 54 of the said Act arising out of the Notification dated 3^rd February 1970 relating to the same project and pertaining to the same village has granted compensation @ Rs.25/- per sq.mtr. for the acquired lands.

¶18

4 In the light of adjudication by the Division Bench of this Court, it would not be permissible to further reduce the amount of compensation which has been granted before the Reference Court @ Rs. 10/- per sq.mtr. Thus, in the light of aforesaid adjudication, the challenges raised in this Appeal cannot be accepted.

¶19

5 Accordingly, First Appeal No. 557 of 1991 stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶20

(A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

¶21

1 First Appeal No.423 of 1996 in LAR No.657/1987 with First Appeal No.1534 of 1996 in LAR No.657/1987 Dt.16.092004

¶22

2/2

¶23

Shraddha Talekar PS

The State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Bhagwan Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Prabhakar Bhagwan Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shri. Chandrakant Narayan Kadam (Expired) Mrs. Shubhangi Chandrakant Kadam and Ors.

Smt. Smita Vishwas Deshmukh and Ors. Vs Sou. Jyoti Deepak Makkad and Anr.

Shri.Sandip Maruti Aher Vs the New India Insurance Co.Ltd. and Anr.

Shri. Sandesh Suresh Picha Vs Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. through Its Manger

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co.Ltd.,Thr.Its Branch Manager Vs Shri.Jagdish @ Swapnil Rajaram Supare and Anr.

Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shri. Sandesh Suresh Picha