Single bench dismissed state appeal under Section 54 LAA, 1894 against reference court awarding additional compensation. Bench held the award was evidence-based and dismissed appeal to prevent state from clogging courts with trivial claims.
Appeal dismissed; impugned order executable; Respondent at liberty to withdraw compensation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
20 fa 32-2000.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 32 OF 2000
The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant Versus Sidhu Dnyanu Wagh ...Respondent
SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN
Digitally signed by SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Date: 2023.12.20 19:42:50 +0530
Ms. Tanaya Goswami, AGP for the Appellant/State. None for the Respondent.
CORAM : M.M.SATHAYE, J. DATE : 20th DECEMBER 2023
P.C. :
page 1 /5
Sneha Chavan
20 fa 32-2000.doc
the Respondent/Claimant was acquired for the purpose of Lodhe Irrigation Tank. The notification under Section 4 of the said Act was issued on 19.09.1985. The concerned SLAO passed the Award on 22.11.1988. The total compensation awarded by the concerned SLAO was Rs.16,847/- including for land as well for trees. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said Award, the Respondent filed the aforesaid Reference under Section 18 of the said Act. The Reference Court after hearing both sides and on appreciation of evidence on record, has granted enhanced compensation as indicated above.
Sneha Chavan page 2 /5
20 fa 32-2000.doc
payable.
page 3 /5
Sneha Chavan
20 fa 32-2000.doc
cases it is found that the AGPs express their helplessness because despite communication/s the concerned Government officers do not come forward and take responsibility by clearly stating whether a particular Land Reference case is falling under relevant GRs (including G.R. dated 03.11.2016 with Corrigendum dated 23.02.2017, 04.05.2017 and 11.05.2018) and whether the Appeal should be prosecuted or not in view thereof. It is further sadly noted that the general perception seems to be, firstly that the claims which are held against Government or Statutory Authority must be viewed as illegal and therefore should be resisted and fought up to the highest Courts and secondly, that if a decision on the issue could be avoided or is to be avoided, then it is simply not taken so that aggrieved party can approach the Court and let the Court take the decision. This results in clogging of the judicial system and also eats into the valuable judicial time. In view thereof I find that this is a fit case for dismissal.
page 4 /5
Sneha Chavan
20 fa 32-2000.doc
page 5 /5
Sneha Chavan
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the state appeal against grant of additional compensation for land acquisition should be allowed or dismissed.
Whether the impugned order enhanced compensation based on valid reasons despite a paltry amount awarded.
Whether the state's clogging of judicial proceedings by persisting in such appeals justifies dismissal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The State of Maharashtra
Sidhu Dnyanu Wagh
M.M.SATHAYE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
