Allowed

Pandurang S/O Kashiram Ade v. the State of Maharashtra Thorugh Collector, Yavatmal and 2 Others

Bombay HC15 Apr 2024FA/559/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this special leave appeal regarding land acquisition compensation, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court allowed the appeal. Relying on the decision in First Appeal No.8/2015 (Ulhas S/o. Hiraman Rathod), the court directed the acquiring body to pay compensation at Rs.83,000 per hectare, deeming the lands similarly situated.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No.2 to pay compensation at Rs.83,000 per hectare. The remaining part of the impugned order is maintained. Interest excluded.

Pandurang S/O Kashiram Ade Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:4950

¶2

12A.FA.559.2016. Judgment.odt

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶5

FIRST APPEAL NO. 559 OF 2016

¶6

APPELLANTS : 1. Pandurang S/o. Kashiram Ade (Dead), through L.Rs.

¶7

Amendment carried out as 1[a] Jijabai Pandurang Ade, Aged about per Court’s Order dt. 55 Years.

¶8

28.02.2024 1[b] Taravanti Maroti Rathod, Aged about 33 Years.

¶9

1[c] Satyashila Sanjay Pawar, Aged about 30 Years.

¶10

1[d] Vishwanath Pandurang Ade, Aged about 29 Years.

¶11

1[e] Shital Nursing Rathod, Aged about 28 Years.

¶12

1[f] Eknath Pandurang Ade, Aged about 25 Years. All are Residents of Bhiku Nagar, Tq. Mahagaon, District – Yavatmal.

¶13

//VERSUS//

¶14

RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Collector, Yavatmal.

¶15

1. Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Pusad, District : Yavatmal.

¶16

1. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Lower Pus Project, Pusad, Tahsil Pusad, District : Yavatmal.

¶17

¶18

Mr. K.S. Narwade, Advocate for the Appellants. Ms. Prachi Joshi, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 3. Mr. A.M. Kukday, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶19

¶20

12A.FA.559.2016. Judgment.odt

¶21

¶22

CORAM : G. A. SANAP, J. DATED : 15th APRIL , 2024.

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

. In this appeal, challenge is to the judgment and award dated 03.09.2013, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pusad (for short “the Reference Court”), whereby the claim for enhancement of compensation was partly allowed.

¶25

02] The factual position in the present appeal is as under:-

¶26

Amdapu Date of Notificati Acquisition Act, 1	r Irrigation Project, District Yava on under Section 4 of the Land 894.	tmal 21.08.1997
Address of property	Details of property LAO Award Dated 27.11.2000	Ref. Court Award Dated 03.09.2013
Village:Kurli, Tq. Umarkhed, Dist. Yavatmal.	Gat No.58 & 60 1H 24R Rs.17,500/- per hectare	Rs.35,000/- per hectare

¶27

03] Learned advocates for the parties submit that this appeal is covered by the decision rendered by this Court in First Appeal

¶28

No.8/2015 [Ulhas S/o. Hiraman Rathod Vs. The Collector, Yavatmal & Others, on 05.09.2023].

¶29

3- 12A.FA.559.2016. Judgment.odt

¶30

04] Learned advocate for the appellants submits that the land in this appeal and the land in First Appeal No.8/2015 are similarly situated in all respects. The lands are dry-crop lands. It is pointed out that the compensation awarded by this Court for drycrop land in First Appeal No.8/2015 is @ Rs.83,000/- per hectare. It is seen that, while deciding First Appeal No.8/2015, number of judgments decided in the first appeals arising out of the award passed in respect of the same project and the same village have been considered.

¶31

05] On going through the record and proceedings, I am satisfied that this appeal is covered by the decision rendered in First Appeal No.8/2015. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence the following order:

¶32

a) The appeal is allowed .

¶33

b) Respondent No.2-Acquiring Body is directed to pay compensation to the appellants @ Rs.83,000/- (Rupees Eighty Three Thousand Only) per hectare.

¶34

c) The remaining part of the impugned order is maintained as it is.

¶35

4- 12A.FA.559.2016. Judgment.odt

¶36

d) It is made clear that while calculating the aforesaid amount, interest and other statutory benefits for the period of delay of 656 days caused in filing this appeal, shall not be calculated and granted.

¶37

e) The amount of compensation with interest in terms of this order be deposited within ten weeks.

¶38

f) Failure to deposit the said amount within stipulated time shall entail serious consequences.

¶39

06] The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶40

Vijay

Pandurang S/O Kashiram Ade v. the State of Maharashtra Thorugh Collector, Yavatmal and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandurang S/O Kashiram Ade v. the State of Maharashtra Thorugh Collector, Yavatmal and 2 Others

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

Ketkee W/O Bharat Pathak vs Bharat S/O Ramanand Pathak

Nirmala W/O Rambhau Kute and Others Vs Kalabai W/O Rambhau Kute (Dead) and Another

Smt. Vaishali Bandu Dudhe vs Nitin Ganpatrao Bhowate

Shyamrao S/O Vishwanath Ajabale (Dead) Thr. L.R.S. Sevendra S/O Shyamrao Ajabale and Others vs the State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Nagpur and Other

Sukhdeo Sampatrao Deulkar vs Special Land Acquition Officer (General) Nagpur (Parsodi) and 2 Others

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., through Its Branch Manager, Malkapur vs Swati Arun Khandare and Others