Dismissed

State of Maha and Anr. v. Vijay Sundarrao Lokhande

Bombay HC17 Jan 2018FA/773/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This first appeal challenged the Reference Court's order enhancing compensation from Rs.290 to Rs.900 per Are for land acquisition in Jalna. The appellant argued rival sale deeds were non-comparable. The court found the referenced awards involved lands in the same village (Padmawati) for the same project with similar quality, holding there was no reason to interfere.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and no order for costs was made.

State of Maha and Anr. Vs Vijay Sundarrao Lokhande — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

FA 773/05

¶2

- 1 -

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

FIRST APPEAL NO.773 OF 2005

¶6

1] The State of Maharashtra, through the Collector,Jalna.

¶7

2] The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor Irrigation Works, Jalna, District Jalna.

¶8

...Appellants...

¶9

( Orig. Respondents).

¶10

Versus

¶11

 Vijay Sundarrao Lokhande,
 Age : 35 year, Occupation :
 Agriculture, R/o : House
 No.616, Arunoday Colony,
 No.5, Aurangabad.

¶12

...Respondent...

¶13

(Orig. Claimant)

¶14

 .....

¶15

Shri S.P. Deshmukh, AGP for appellants.
None present for respondent though served.

¶16

 .....

¶17

CORAM: M.S. SONAK, J.

¶18

DATE: 17.01.2018

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶20

1]Heard learned AGP for the appellants. The

¶21

respondent, though served, is neither present nor
represented.

¶22

FA 773/05

¶23

- 2 -

¶24

2]Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and
award dated 28.1.2003 by which the learned Reference
Court has enhanced the compensation in respect of
acquired lands from Rs.290/- per Are to Rs.900/- per Are.
3]Learned AGP for the appellants submits that the

¶25

sale deeds, on which the Reference Court has relied upon,

¶26

do not pertain to lands adjacent to the acquired lands,

¶27

but rather some of the sale deeds were in respect of
lands from adjacent villages. Further, he points out
that the sale deeds were in respect of small area and,

¶28

therefore, were not comparable instances. He points out
that the Reference Court has erred in relying upon the
awards in LAR Nos.220/1996 and 117/1996 (Exhibits 20 and
21) because the lands, which were subject of the said
awards, were not comparable with the lands, which are the
subject matter of the present appeal. For all these
reasons, the learned AGP submits that the impugned award
may be set aside and determination by the LAO be
restored.

¶29

4]Having considered the submissions of the learned

¶30

AGP and perused the material on record, there is really

¶31

no reason to interfere with the impugned award. The

¶32

FA 773/05

¶33

- 3 -

¶34

Reference Court has basically relied upon Exhibits 20 and
21, which are awards in respect of lands situated in the
village Padmawati itself. The acquired lands, which form
the subject of the present appeal, are also situated in
the village Padmawati. In fact, the Reference Court has
observed that both the set of lands were acquired for one
and the same project and, therefore, there was no reason
to adopt any unequal yardstick in the matter of
determination of compensation.

¶35

5]In the awards at Exhibits 20 and 21, the

¶36

compensation determined was Rs.900/- per Are. The

¶37

material on record indicates that the acquired lands were
similar to the lands, which were the subject matter of

¶38

awards at Exhibits 20 and 21. The lands were from the

¶39

same village and were acquired for the same project. The
nature of the lands, including particularly the quality

¶40

and fertility, was also similar. Since this is the
position of the material on record, there is really no
reason to interfere with the impugned award.

¶41

6]Besides, in this case, it must be noted that the
enhanced compensation is less than four times the ready
reckoner rates as prevalent at the time of issuance of
Section 4 notification. This means that the enhanced

¶42

FA 773/05

¶43

compensation is well within the limits prescribed in the
Government resolution dated 3.11.2016, which records the
policy decision of the State Government or its
instrumentalities not to pursue the matters of this
nature.

¶44

7]For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

ndk/ c171189.doc

State of Maha and Anr. v. Vijay Sundarrao Lokhande

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Maha and Anr. v. Vijay Sundarrao Lokhande

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

M I D C Nashik Vs Dhanraj Gorakh Patil

The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division Thr Lift Irrigation Division,Osmanabad Vs Narsingh Vinayakrao Patil and Others

Maruti Manik Jadhav and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Collector Beed and Anr.

Priyanka W/O Anand Banbare @ D/O Pundlikrao Chinchalkar Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Thr Its Div. Manager, Nanded and Ors.

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sopan Vishwanath Wagh Died L.Rs. Shindhula Sopan Wagh

Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation Ltd. Vs Rameshwar Balaji Muchhe