Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.89 seconds)Section 4 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
State Of Maharashtra And Anr. vs Baliram Girdhar Patil on 12 July, 2006
7. Learned counsel for Appellants submits that once the
Reference court has accepted the sale-deed (Exhibit 18) dated
20.04.2000 to be comparable sale instance, then admittedly the said
sale was in respect of Jirayat land and for the purpose of deciding
compensation, valuation of the property ought to have been taken
double to the valuation of the Jirayat land. To support his
submissions, he placed reliance on judgment of the Coordinate
Bench of this Court in case of State of Maharashtra and another vs.
Baliram Girdhar Patil, 2006(6) Mh.L.J. 82 and judgment of Division
Bench in case of Special Land Acquisition Officer Jalgaon and another
-5-
fa3760.08.odt
vs. Bhagwat Vithal Sonawane, 2009(4) Mh.L.J. 308. It is his further
submission by drawing attention of the Court to the award passed by
the Special Land Acquistion Officer wherein he has considered 12%
increase on the consideration in sale instance dated 20.04.2000 and
hence Reference Court ought to have granted said increase. Insofar
as rejection of claim valuation of trees is concerned, it is argued that
without any case being made out by the Respondents about the
Valuer being not expert in valuation of the trees, the said claim was
wrongly rejected.
Dhondiba Dagdu Pawagi vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 2 March, 2017
He placed reliance on judgment in case of Pandhari
s/o Dhondiba Nukuklwad vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2019
SCC OnLine Bom 2045, to support submission that issuance of
prior notice by the expert before taking inspection/valuation is not
mandatory.
1