Saturday, 02, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Pralhad S/O Dhondba Tayade (Dead) ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 6494 Bom

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 6494 Bom
Judgement Date : 23 August, 2017

Bombay High Court
Pralhad S/O Dhondba Tayade (Dead) ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 23 August, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
        J-fa985.17.odt                                                                                               1/3      


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


                                      FIRST APPEAL No.985 OF 2017


        Pralhad s/o. Dhondba Tayade,
        (dead), through legal heirs.
        1.   Vijay Pralhad Tayade,
              Aged 54 years, Occupation : Service.

        2.   Vilas Pralhad Tayade,
              Aged 56 years,
              Occupation : Agriculturist,
              
              R/o. Digras, Tah. Digras, Distt. Yavatmal.                             :      APPELLANTS

                           ...VERSUS...

        1.    The State of Maharashtra.
        2.    The Collector, Yavatmal.
        3.    Special Land Acquisition Officer,
               M.I.W. No.2, Arunawati Project, Digras,
               Tq. Digras, Distt. Yavatmal.                                           :      RESPONDENTS


        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
        Shri R.J. Shinde, Advocate for the Appellants.
        Shri A.M. Kadukar, Asstt. Government Pleader for the Respondents.
        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


                                                      CORAM  :   S.B. SHUKRE, J.

rd DATE : 23 AUGUST, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.P.

for the respondents.

J-fa985.17.odt 2/3

2. Admit. Heard finally by consent.

3. There is no need to call for record and proceedings as the

issue involved in this appeal is squarely covered by the judgments of this

Court in Civil Application (F) No.2830/2016 with First Appeal St.

No.20562/2015.

4. The land of the appellants was acquired for the purposes of

Arunavati Irrigation Project which was admeasuring 1 hectare 62 HR

along with Well situated at village Kalsa, District Yavatmal. The acquired

land was fully irrigated one. The Reference Court by its judgment and

order dated 15.2.1990 determined the market value of the irrigated land

to be at Rs.35,000/- and thus partly allowed the reference under Section

18 of the Land Acquisition Act. In Civil Application (F) No.2830/2016

with First Appeal St. No.20562/2015, decided on 1 st February, 2017, this

Court found that the rate of the land from the same area, which is

irrigated one, should have been of Rs.1,30,000/-.

5. In the present case, the acquired land is similarly situated as

the land is involved in Civil Application (F) No.2830/2016 with First

Appeal St. No.20562/2015 decided on 1 st February, 2017 (irrigated one).

There is no dispute about this fact. Therefore, I am of the view that even

for the acquired land in the instant case, same rates as were determined

by this Court in the above referred appeal, would have to be fixed for

giving just and proper compensation.

J-fa985.17.odt 3/3

6. In the circumstances, I find that the market value of the

acquired land in the present case is of Rs.1,30,000/- per hectare, it being

fully irrigated and accordingly the compensation deserves to be given at

this rate to the appellants and it is so given.

7. The appellants would also be entitled to receive other

benefits regarding interest, solatium etc. at the same rates as given by the

Reference Court in its judgment and order dated 29.10.1990, however,

with the modification that interest granted by the Reference Court at 9%

p.a. on excess amount shall be for one year from the date of possession.

It is made clear that the appellants would not be entitled to receive

interest on the enhanced compensation, according to this order for the

period from 29.10.1990 till date. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

8. The impugned judgment and order stand modified in the

above terms.

9. If there is any deficit on account of payment of Court fees,

same be made over and paid within two weeks from the date of order.

No costs.

JUDGE okMksns

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter