Allowed

Dadarao Vitthalrao Warne and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC27 Jul 2018WP/10419/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerned compensation for agricultural land inundated by the Manyad river due to flooding. The court directed the respondents to decide the quantum of compensation within six months and pay it within three months thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to decide compensation quantum within 6 months and pay within 3 months thereafter; no costs awarded.

Dadarao Vitthalrao Warne and Another Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

1003 WRIT PETITION NO. 10419 OF 2017

¶3

DADARAO VITTHALRAO WARNE AD ANOTHER

¶4

VERSUS

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AD OTHERS

¶6

...

¶7

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Thombre Chandrakant V.
AGP for Respondent Nos 1 to 6 : Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya

¶8

...

¶9

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA

¶10

AND

¶11

SUNIL K.KOTWAL, JJ.

¶12

 DATE : JULY 27, 2018

¶13

O R D E R:

¶14

It is the contention of the petitioners that the

¶15

river Manyad is flowing adjacent to the land of the

¶16

petitioners. Because of the flood problems the water enters
the agricultural field of the petitioners. Due to that the
land of the petitioners is inundated. Time and again, the

¶17

petitioners approached the respondents for compensation for
damages caused due to flood. On 16.3.2007 panchanama was
prepared by the Circle Agricultural Officer. The report

¶18

was submitted to District Superintendent and the

¶19

Agricultural Officer, Nanded explaining the heavy loss.

¶20

2 wp10419.17

¶21

2. Learned counsel submits that in view of

¶22

Government Resolution dated 17.9.2014 the petitioners are
entitled for compensation.

¶23

3.Learned counsel submits that, time and again
representation is made, however, of no avail. The learned
counsel placed on record the report and the communication
made by the Tahsildar to the District Collector stating

¶24

about the valuation of that “part of land” merged into the
river. The valuation of Gut No. 106 to the extent of 97
Are is Rs. 7,05,500/- and for Gut No. 107 to the extent of
1 H 7 Are is to the tune of Rs. 7,53,500/- total Rs.
14,59,000/-. The loss is sustained by the petitioners
since 1983. It is submitted that even the Collector has
recommended the same.

¶25

4.Respondents are required to act diligently and
in tune with the concept of 'Welfare State'.

¶26

5.Considering the reports submitted by the

¶27

Tahsildar to the Collector, respondent nos. 1 and 2 shall
take decision with regard to the amount of compensation

¶28

3 wp10419.17

¶29

payable to the petitioners, within the period of 6 months
and in case the decision is taken with regard to the
quantum of compensation payable, then the same shall be
paid to the petitioners within three months thereafter.

¶30

6.The writ petition accordingly is disposed of. No

¶31

costs.

¶32

 [SUNIL K.KOTWAL, J.] [S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.]

¶33

mahajansb/

Dadarao Vitthalrao Warne and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dadarao Vitthalrao Warne and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganpatrao Eknathrao Narwade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Harvindersingh Basantsingh Bindra Vs Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1 Aurangabad and Another

Mangalabai Bhausaheb Pathade and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sayed Rauf Sayed Yusuf Quadri and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sojar Gangaram Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Raghunath Patilba Shelke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others