Back
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J
The State of Maharashtra, Through its District Collector, Aurangabad – Appellant
Versus
Bhimdeo s/o Rattu Rathod Age: 28 years – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appeals concern compensation claims related to land acquisition. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. appellants argue insufficient evidence was provided by claimants to justify compensation increase. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. court's duty is to closely scrutinize evidence presented by claimants. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT:
. The State has preferred these two appeals feeling aggrieved by the common impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in LAR No.05 of 2013 and LAR No.06 of 2013 under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act” for the sake of convenience). Both appeals can be disposed of by common judgment.
2 The following factual scenario would cover the dispute in narrow compass:
1) Name of the Village :- Kolwadi Tanda, Taluka Kannad, District Aurangabad.
| Gat Number | Acquired Area |
| 301 | 1 H 56 R |
| 301 | 1 H 98 R |
| 301 | 2 H 00 R |
3) Date of Notification U/s. 4 of L.A. Act Date: 31-7-1995 published in Mah. Gov. Gazette
4) Date of Notice U/s.4 of L.A. Act received Date: 02-4-1998 by the claimants.
5) Date of possession of the land taken Date: 09-4-1996 by the Ex. Engg. by private negotiation
6) Date of Award U/sec. 11 Date 25-7-2000 7) Date on which Notice o
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
