Disposed

Harishchandra Shrihari Thosar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC2 May 2018WP/3123/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners aggrieved by non-payment of Section 34 interest for agricultural land acquired for irrigation. Court disposed of petitions by directing Collector to decide claims within four months and payment within three months if entitled.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Collector to decide claims for Section 34 interest within four months and direct payment within three months if entitled.

Harishchandra Shrihari Thosar Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

{1}

¶2

wp 3121 to 3126.18.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

4 WRIT PETITION NO. 3121 OF 2018

¶5

WITH WP/3122/2018 WITH WP/3123/2018 WITH WP/3124/2018 WITH WP/3125/2018 WITH WP/3126/2018

¶6

ASHRUBA YOGIRAJ SANAP AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. D.A. Bide AGP for Respondents:Mr. S.S. Dande

¶8

CORAM : R. M. BORDE & K. K. SONAWANE, JJ. Dated: May 02, 2018

¶9

PER COURT :-

¶10

1 The petitioners, whose agricultural land has been acquired for construction of a minor irrigation project, have approached this Court, making a grievance that the statutory benefits provided under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have not been extended to them while determining the amount of compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer.

¶11

2 The Land Acquisition Officer has declared the Award on 16.11.2007. The Award statement indicates that the possession of the property has been taken over by the acquiring body on the date of declaration of Section 4 notification i.e. 25.9.2004. Though the award has been declared, the claimants have not been paid interest as provided under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶12

{2} wp 3121 to 3126.18.odt

¶13

3 If that be so, it would be the responsibility of the State and the acquiring body to pay the statutory benefits to the agriculturists. The petitioners have presented representation to the Collector on 18.8.2017, claiming the amount of interest as provided under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, the representations have not yet been decided.

¶14

4 In the circumstances, these petitions stand disposed of with directions to the Collector, Beed to take decision on the representations tendered by the petitioners, claiming statutory benefits under section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act in accordance with the provisions of law, considering the merits of the contentions, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of four months from today. During the inquiry, if the petitioners are held entitled to receive the statutory benefits under section 34 of the Land Acquisition act, the amounts so determined, shall be paid to the petitioners by the State or Acquiring Body as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the said direction.

¶15

5 With the directions as above, the writ petitions are disposed of.

¶16

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

¶17

vbd

Harishchandra Shrihari Thosar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harishchandra Shrihari Thosar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rambhau Nivrutirao Gund Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Daman Rangnath Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shivaji Chatrabhuj Waghmare through Lrs Dagadabai Shivaji Waghmare and Others Vs the Chief Executive Officer Zp Beed and Another

Kailash Namdeo Waghmare and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gahininath Apparao Thosar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gopinath Vithal Bhondve and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others