SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(SC) 1070

B.N.KIRPAL, K.RAMASWAMY
State Of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
Babu Govind Gavate – Respondent


Advocates:
D.M.Nargolkar, S.M.JADHAV

Judgement Key Points

What is the legality of deducting one-third of the land compensation payable under Section 23(1) from a government acquisition under Section 4, in light of Section 43 and the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act? What is the role of Section 43 sanction in transfers to third parties versus eminent domain acquisitions, and can the government deduct compensation under a circular or notification? What are the limits of the government’s power to deduct compensation from a tenant-turned-owner when land is acquired for a public purpose?

What is the legality of deducting one-third of the land compensation payable under Section 23(1) from a government acquisition under Section 4, in light of Section 43 and the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act?

What is the role of Section 43 sanction in transfers to third parties versus eminent domain acquisitions, and can the government deduct compensation under a circular or notification?

What are the limits of the government’s power to deduct compensation from a tenant-turned-owner when land is acquired for a public purpose?


(1) THE facts are very brief. Notification under Section 4(1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act), acquiring land for a public purpose, namely, to establish Electricity Sub-Station for the Maharashtra State Electricity Board as published in the State Gazette on 19-4-1966. The Land Acquisition Officer in his award determined the compensation at Rs. 5,000.00 per acre in respect of an extent of 7 acres 9 gunthas of land in Survey No. 124-A situated in Airavali Village in Thane District of State of Maharashtra, but deducted l/3rd towards the interest of the government. The respondent had challenged the governments power to deduct 1/3rd compensation. The appellate court confirmed the same. On appeal, the High court, while increasing the compensation to Rs. 6,000.00 per acre, had directed payment of the deducted l/3rd amount to the respondent by its judgment and decree dated 10/9/1976 made in FA No. 574 of 1970. Thus this appeal by special leave.

(2) LEARNED counsel appearing for the State has contended that the government in its circular dated 26/4/1972 issued by Revenue and Forests Department in Letter No. LON-4767-H, directed deduction of l/3rd of the








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top