Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra Thro.Collector. v. Mohammad Abdul Salim Abdul Raheman.

Bombay HC7 Feb 2019FA/169/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The State preferred an appeal against a Reference Court order enhancing compensation to Rs.1 per sq.ft. for land acquired for a university sub-center. Relying on a subsequent judgment raising compensation to Rs.5 per sq.ft., the Bombay High Court dismissed the appeal and ordered remission of deposited amounts with interest.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed and deposit remitted to respondent-claimant with interest.

The State of Maharashtra Thro.Collector. Vs Mohammad Abdul… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

FA169/2006

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO.169 OF 2006

¶5

1. The State of Maharashtra Through Collector, Nanded.

¶6

2. The Special Land Acquisition Officer Nanded, Vishnupuri Project, Land Acquisition officer, Nanded. = APPELLANTS

¶7

 ( orig. Respondents)

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

Mohd. Abdul Saleem s/o Abdul
Rehman, Age: 40 Yrs.,
occu. Agril. R/o Vishnupru,
Nanded.

¶10

 =RESPONDENT
 ( orig. Claimant)

¶11

Mr.AM Phule,AGP for Appellant/s;
Mr.PP Mandlik, Adv. for Respondent.

¶12

CORAM: P.R.BORA, J.
DATE : 7th February, 2019

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶14

1.The State has preferred the present

¶15

appeal against the common Judgment and Award

¶16

passed in LAR No.332/1993 with connected LARs

¶17

decided by the court of Civil Judge, Senior
Division, Nanded (hereinafter referred to as the

¶18

Reference Court) on 12th March, 1996.

¶19

2.Land, which is the subject matter of this

¶20

appeal, was acquired for establishment of

¶21

FA169/2006

¶22

(2)

¶23

MarathwadaUniversitySub-centerforthe

¶24

development of Vishnupuri village. Dissatisfied
with the amount of compensation offered by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer, respondent-
claimant had preferred Reference Application under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as the Act) wherein the
Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation
by determining the market value of the acquired
land @ Rupee 1/- per sq.ft. Aggrieved by, the
State has preferred the present appeal.

¶25

3.When the present appeal is taken up for
hearing, Shri Mandlik, learned counsel appearing
for respondent-claimant, tendered across the Bar a

¶26

copy of judgment of this Court (Coram:
K.L.Wadane,J.) in FA No.1424/2011. The said appeal
was filed by the claimant in LAR No.332/1993
claiming enhancement in the amount of compensation

¶27

as offered by the Reference Court. Admittedly, the
LAR No.332/1993 and the LAR against which the
present appeal is preferred, i.e. LAR No.393/1993,

¶28

were decided by the common judgment by the
Reference Court. The learned counsel pointed out

¶29

FA169/2006

¶30

(3)

¶31

that this Court has enhanced the amount of

¶32

compensation to Rs.5/- per sq.ft. The learned
Counsel in the circumstances submitted that the
present appeal deserves to be dismissed in view of

¶33

the subsequent judgment delivered by this Court
arising out of the same common Judgment and Award.

¶34

4.I have perused the impugned judgment.

¶35

Even otherwise, it does not appear to me that any
interference was called for in the impugned
Judgment and Award. For both reasons, the appeal
deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly
dismissed. The amount deposited, if any, and lying

¶36

in the the present appeal, be remitted to the
respondent-claimant, if already not withdrawn by
him along with interest accrued thereon. Pending

¶37

civil application, if any, stands disposed of.

¶38

(P.R.BORA)
 JUDGE

¶39

bdv/

The State of Maharashtra Thro.Collector. v. Mohammad Abdul Salim Abdul Raheman.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra Thro.Collector. v. Mohammad Abdul Salim Abdul Raheman.

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

Dagdubai Vaijinath Kore Vs the Executive Engineer, Osmanabad Irrigation Division, Omerga and Ors.

Manmath Bhimrao Kapse Vs the Executive Engineer, Osmanabad Irrigation Division, Omerga and Ors.

The Executive Engineer, Nandur Madhmeshwar Canal Div. Vaijapur Vs Rangnath Jaiwanta Khoje Deceased Lrs Dhondabai and Others

The Ex. Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division Osmanabad Thr Mohan B Kade and Anr. Vs Hariba Devrao Mane and Ors.

M.S.E.B.Thru Ex.Engr.(Civil)Osmanabad. Vs Gundappa Mallikarjun Swami and Anr.

M.S.E.B.Thru Ex.Engr.(Civil)Osmanabad. Vs Vasantrao Digambarrao Shashtri and Anr.