Wednesday, 15, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

State Of Maharashtra vs Manikrao Kaduba Tayade (Dead) ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 9237 Bom

Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 9237 Bom
Judgement Date : 30 November, 2017

Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra vs Manikrao Kaduba Tayade (Dead) ... on 30 November, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
        fa212.08.odt                                                                                                1/3        


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


                                      FIRST APPEAL No.212 OF 2008


        1.    The State of Maharashtra.

        2.    The Special Land Acquisition Officer,
               Minor Irrigation Works, Buldana.                                      :      APPELLANTS

                           ...VERSUS...

        1.    Manikrao Kaduba Tayade (dead)
               Legal Representatives :
               
               (1)  Smt. Kasturabai Manikrao Tayade,
                      Aged 58 years.
               (2) Sau. Lankabai Devidas Bawaskar,
                      Aged 38 years.
               (3) Subhash Manikrao Tayade,
                      Aged 35 years.
                (4)  Sau. Sugandhabai Subhash Raut,
                      Aged 33 years.
               (5) Sau. Ushabai Dattatraya Bhonde,
                      Aged 30 years.
               (6) Ku. Asha Manikrao Tayade,
                      Aged 25 years.
               (7)  Ku. Manisha Manikrao Tayade,
                      Aged 20 years.
               (8) Ku. Jijabai Uttamrao Dahatonde,
                      Aged 43 years.
               (9) Chandrakala w/o. Ambadas Kanadje,
                      Aged 58 years.

                     Smt. Kasturbai Manikrao Tayade,
                     All R/o. Kardi, Tq. & Distt. Buldana.                            :      RESPONDENTS


        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
        Shri M.A. Kadu, Asstt. Government Pleader for the Appellant.
        None appears for respondents
        =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-




::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017                                               ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 01:14:35 :::
         fa212.08.odt                                                                                                2/3        




                                                      CORAM  :   S.B. SHUKRE, J.

th DATE : 30 NOVEMBER, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. This is an appeal which challenges the

legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 13.4.2004

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. 60 of 1996, 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 29th 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

fa212.08.odt 3/3

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. It was a land having irrigation

facility where there were standing trees and well. It being similar

to those lands as are involved in First Appeal No. 153 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, particularly, FA No. 153 of 2008, 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

 
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 : IDRC

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter