Allowed

Ashok Yadavrao Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC3 Sept 2018WP/2818/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court held that the Collector failed to properly determine compensation for cotton crop loss by not using official average yields. The Court directed the Collector to re-calculate compensation based on the chart of average yields and applicable annual rates.

What did the court decide?

The Collector directed to re-determine compensation based on the average yield chart and applicable annual rates, with any excess paid after adjustment.

Ashok Yadavrao Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

wp2818.15

¶2

( 1 )

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2818 OF 2016

¶5

ASHOK YADAVRAO JADHAV
VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

Mr. D.A. Bide, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. S.P. Sonpawale, AGP for the respondent/State.

¶8

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA &
S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
DATED :03.09.2018

¶9

P.C. :-

¶10

1.Mr. Bide, learned counsel submits that the land
of the petitioner was damaged because of the water
logging. The petitioner is paid compensation for loss /
damage caused to the Mosambi trees for the year 2006, in
the year 2011, but no compensation was paid for the loss
of the cotton crop. The petitioner approached the
Collector. The Collector under order dated 11.05.2015
accepted that the loss has been caused to the cotton
crop. However, has limited loss to 10.72 quintal per
hector and the rate was also limited to Rs.2800/- per
quintal. The learned counsel submits that the average
production is about 20 quintal per hector. The same was
also given by the Taluka Agricultural Officer. The
Collector without assigning any reason has failed to
consider the same. The rate given of Rs. 2800/- per
quintal is also the minimum which was for the year
2006-07 to 2013-14.

¶11

2.Mr. Sonpawale,learned AGP submits that the
Collector has taken into consideration the average

¶12

production and the rate which was prevailing at the
relevant time. While awarding the compensation amount
the average rate has been considered.

¶13

3.We have considered the submissions. The average
production has been given by the Taluka Agricultural
Officer. The same is as under:

¶14

**lu 2006&07 rs 2013&14 fid dki.kh iz;ksxkuqlkj dkiwl ¼cka-½ fidkph vkysyh mRikndrk-

¶15

v-Ø-	o"kZ	rkyqD;kph ljkljh vkysyh mRikndrk gsDVjh ¼Doh-½
1½	2006&07	9-88
2½	2007&08	10-08
3½	2008&09	9-97
4½	2009&10	7-20
5½	2010&11	10-82
6½	2011&12	11-11
7½	2012&13	18-18
8½	2013&14	16-15

¶16

4. The authority has to come to the conclusion on
the basis of average only. There are various factors
which would play their part while considering the year
of the crop. In view of that the safest mode is to
consider the average yield every year as was determined
by the agricultural University and by the Agricultural
Officer on the basis of the record available with him.

¶17

5.The Collector has determined 10.72 quintal per
hector whereas the chart given for the year 2006-07 the
average yield was 9.88. In the year 2009-2010 it was
7.20 quintal per hector, whereas in the year 2013-14 it
was 16.15 quintal per hector. The Collector is to be
guided by the experts and the record maintained by the
State authority. The rate given by the Collector is

¶18

( 3 ) wp2818.15

¶19

2800/- per quintal. The Collector has to consider the
rate applicable every year while determining the
compensation amount. The compensation shall be awarded
at the rate that was prevailing in the relevant year. It
is not disputed that as per the quantity and rate
determined by the Collector, the petitioner is paid the
compensation amount.

¶20

6.In light of the above we pass the following

¶21

order.

¶22

7.TheCollectorshallre-determinethe

¶23

compensation amount payable to the petitioner for the
quantity as per the chart referred to in para 3 above
and as per the record maintained by the Agricultural
Officer. The Collector shall consider the rate as was
applicable every year for the cotton and re-determine
the compensation amount payable to the petitioner.

¶24

8.In case the petitioner is entitled for more
compensation amount the same shall be paid after
adjusting the amount that is already paid to the
petitioner.

¶25

9.Writ Petition disposed of. No costs.

¶26

[S.M.GAVHANE,J.] [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J.]

¶27

ssp/Sept. 18/ wp2818.15

Ashok Yadavrao Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Yadavrao Jadhav 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

Dhanraj Digambar Choudhari Vs Jai Tulja Bhavani Shikshan Prasarak Mandal and Ors.

Ratansing Motising Salok Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Maharashtra Public Service Commission through Deputy Secretary Vs Karuna Mahadeo Dongardive and Ors.

Prabhakar Kachru @ Bhivsen Hiwale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kanchan Sunil More U/G Sunil Babulal More Vs Director of Technical Education, Mah. State, Mumbai and Ors.

Tukaram Vyankatrao Dhumale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others