Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.51 seconds)

Motiram S/O Bapurao Ingole vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 1 October, 2021

22. As far as the valuation for constructed portion of the acquired property is concerned, except the valuation report of the expert witness, there is no other material, which could be brought on record by the appellant/ claimant about valuation of construction of the acquired property. The Reference Court awarded compensation @ Rs.450/- per sq. mtr. towards constructed area. The expert witness, i.e., the valuer has valued the constructed area @ Rs.1760/- per sq. mtr. The valuer has considered P.W.D.C.S.R. 1989-90 plinth area rate for the specific building and arrived at the rate Rs.2,200/- per sq. mtr. After deducting depreciation @ 1% per annum for 20 years old house and future life of 35 years, the valuation comes to Rs. 1760/- per sq. mtr. However, as stated earlier, the valuer has given certain material admissions in his cross-examination, and hence, the valuation, as done by him, cannot be taken as it is considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Executive Engineer Vs. Vitthal Damodar Patil (supra).

Nanbhau Jangalu Pawar vs State Of Maharashtra on 18 December, 2024

In support of his contentions, he relied on the following authorities : (1) The Executive Engineer, M.I.W. Vs. Vitthal Damodar Patil & ors. [ MANU/SC/0856/2019 ] (2) Hans Raj Sharma (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Collector, Land Acquisition, Tehsil &District Doda [ 2005 AIR (SC) 1136 ] (3) Navanath & ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra 200 AIR (SCW) 3611 (4) Chindha Fakira Patil (D) through L.Rs. Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon [ 2012 AIR (SC) 481 ] (5) Ambya Kalya Mhatra (D) by L.Rs. & ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra [ 2011 AIR SCW 5749 ]
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - R G Avachat - Full Document

The State Of Maharashtra vs Nanabhau Jagalu Pawar Died Thr. Lrs ... on 18 December, 2024

In support of his contentions, he relied on the following authorities : (1) The Executive Engineer, M.I.W. Vs. Vitthal Damodar Patil & ors. [ MANU/SC/0856/2019 ] (2) Hans Raj Sharma (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Collector, Land Acquisition, Tehsil &District Doda [ 2005 AIR (SC) 1136 ] (3) Navanath & ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra 200 AIR (SCW) 3611 (4) Chindha Fakira Patil (D) through L.Rs. Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon [ 2012 AIR (SC) 481 ] (5) Ambya Kalya Mhatra (D) by L.Rs. & ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra [ 2011 AIR SCW 5749 ]
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - R G Avachat - Full Document

Nanabhau Jagalu Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 18 December, 2024

In support of his contentions, he relied on the following authorities : (1) The Executive Engineer, M.I.W. Vs. Vitthal Damodar Patil & ors. [ MANU/SC/0856/2019 ] (2) Hans Raj Sharma (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Collector, Land Acquisition, Tehsil &District Doda [ 2005 AIR (SC) 1136 ] (3) Navanath & ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra 200 AIR (SCW) 3611 (4) Chindha Fakira Patil (D) through L.Rs. Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon [ 2012 AIR (SC) 481 ] (5) Ambya Kalya Mhatra (D) by L.Rs. & ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra [ 2011 AIR SCW 5749 ]
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - R G Avachat - Full Document

The State Of Maharashtra vs Nanabhau Jagalu Pawar on 18 December, 2024

In support of his contentions, he relied on the following authorities : (1) The Executive Engineer, M.I.W. Vs. Vitthal Damodar Patil & ors. [ MANU/SC/0856/2019 ] (2) Hans Raj Sharma (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Collector, Land Acquisition, Tehsil &District Doda [ 2005 AIR (SC) 1136 ] (3) Navanath & ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra 200 AIR (SCW) 3611 (4) Chindha Fakira Patil (D) through L.Rs. Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon [ 2012 AIR (SC) 481 ] (5) Ambya Kalya Mhatra (D) by L.Rs. & ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra [ 2011 AIR SCW 5749 ]
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - R G Avachat - Full Document

The Ex. Engineer, Minor Irrigation ... vs Ranjana Jivan Jahagirdar And Ors on 10 December, 2020

2. Learned counsel for applicants submits that enhancement has been too steep and would not be borne by evidence. He further purports to refer to that private valuer's report has been relied on. Even otherwise, the valuer has not followed proper procedure. He purports to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of the Executive Engineer, M.I.W. vs. Vitthal Damodar Patil and another, reported in (2019) 7 S.C.C. 225.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1