The State Of Mah. Thru Collector vs Suryabhan Ananda Tayde
2017 Latest Caselaw 9231 Bom

                                                  1




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                         NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR



First Appeal No. 369  of 2008

 

Appellant :              The State of Maharashtra, through 
                         Collector, Buldana

                         Versus

Respondent:              Suryabhan Ananda Tayde, aged about 30
                         years, Agriculturist, resident of Kardi, 
                         Tahsil and District Buldana

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shri M. A. Kadu, Assistant Government Pleader for appellant None appears for respondent

Coram : S. B. Shukre, J

Dated : 30th November 2017

Oral Judgment

1. This is an appeal which challenges the legality and

correctness of the judgment and order dated 8.2.2005 commonly passed

in about 81 land acquisition cases by the Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Buldhana. This appeal arises out of the Land Acquisition Case No. 81 of

1993, decided by the Reference Court.

2. The acquired land in the present case forms a chunk of all the

lands acquired for the purpose of construction of a water tank at mouza

Kardi, Tahsil and District Buldhana. In First Appeal No. 153 of 2008 and

First Appeal No. 209 of 2008, decided on 29 th November 2017, arising

out of the same judgment and order, as impugned herein, this Court has

confirmed the rates of land, well and trees determined by the Reference

Court. The rate of land with irrigation facility has been determined by the

Reference Court to be at Rs. 90,000/- per hectare while it is determined

at Rs. 75,000/- per hectare for dry-crop land and these rates have been

confirmed by this Court.

3. The acquired land in the present case, as stated earlier, is a

part of the larger chunk of the lands acquired for water tank project at

mouza Kardi and being similar to those lands as are involved in First

Appeal No. 153 of 2008 and First Appeal No. 209 of 2008, there is no

reason for this Court to take a different view of the matter. The facts of

this case and the facts involved in the said appeals are not disputed by

learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant-State and so, this

appeal would have to be decided on the similar lines.

4. In the circumstances, I find that this appeal deserves to be

dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly. No costs.

S. B. SHUKRE, J

joshi/wadode