Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SHAILESH P.BRAHME
Subhadrabai, w/o. Dhondiram Rathod – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. lands acquired for tank; notification last date 11.07.2005. (Para 2 , 3 , 8) |
| 2. parties dispute sale comparability, land type, reference delays. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. section 4 notification date is final publication date. (Para 7) |
| 4. no evidence supports irrigated land classification. (Para 9) |
| 5. adjacent village comparable sale sets rs.2922/are for dry land. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. apply highest comparable rate; award exceeds claim if justified. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 7. 9% interest as rental from possession to notification. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 8. claimant delay in fees denies benefits; official delay does not. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 9. appeals partly allowed; enhanced rates, conditional benefits. (Para 19) |
JUDGMENT :
SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
Taken up for final disposal with the consent of the parties.
2. The appellants are aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 02.05.2015 passed by the Reference Court awarding inadequate compensation. The notification under Section 4 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and the award are common. Hence, all the appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The lands of the appellants from village Nipani Jawalka,
Compensation fixed using pre-notification comparable sale after correcting date; dry lands default absent irrigation proof; benefits denied for claimant delay in fees, granted for authority lapses; 9....
While determining market value/compensation, previous instances of acquisition in proximity for location and potential of land acquisition along with cumulative increase is relevant consideration.
Land Acquisition - Claimant is entitled to get rental compensation in this case when the claimant is dispossessed prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the correct classification of acquired land as perennially irrigated, leading to the entitlement of enhanced compensation, rental compensation, and....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of fair compensation for acquired lands based on the prevailing market rate and the evidence presented to establish the market va....
The court determined that compensation for acquired land must reflect fair market value, aligning with previous awards for similar properties.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of compensation based on the market value of the land at the time of notification under Section 4(1) and the determination of land v....
Compensation for land acquisition must consider legal principles of escalation and delay, leading to justified adjustments based on precedents in similar cases.
Claimants may be awarded a higher compensation than claimed, as established by the Supreme Court in various cases.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
