Citation : 2017 Latest Caselaw 9240 Bom
Judgement Date : 30 November, 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
First Appeal No. 1479 of 2008
Appellants : 1) State of Maharashtra
2) The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Minor
Irrigation Works, Buldhana
Versus
Respondents: 1) Ashok Waman Sananse (Dead), through-
(1) Smt Kusumbai Ashok Sananse, aged
about 32 years, Occ: Household
(2) Ku Warsha Ashok Sananse, aged about
24 years, Occ: Education
(3) Ku Puja Ashok Sananse, aged about 15
years, being minor through mother Smt
Kusumbai Ashok Sananse
All residents of Dhad, Tahsil and District
Buldana
2. Nandkishor Waman Sananse, aged about
46 years, Occ: Farmer, resident of Kardi,
Tahsil and District Buldana
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri B. M. Lonare, Assistant Government Pleader for appellants None appears for respondents
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 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. 59 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 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. It was a dry crop. It 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,
particularly, FA No. 209 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/wadode
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!