Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.32 seconds)Balasaheb Nathu Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 19 March, 2019
(c) The respondent No.3-PCMC shall pay the aforesaid amount
of rental compensation along with interest at the rate of 6%
p.a. in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
cases of State of Maharashtra & Ors. v/s. Maimuma Banu &
Ors. (supra) and Bhagwat s/o. Nathu Patil vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. (supra).
Section 23 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
State Of Maharashtra And Ors vs Maimuma Banu And Ors on 5 August, 2003
(c) The respondent No.3-PCMC shall pay the aforesaid amount
of rental compensation along with interest at the rate of 6%
p.a. in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
cases of State of Maharashtra & Ors. v/s. Maimuma Banu &
Ors. (supra) and Bhagwat s/o. Nathu Patil vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. (supra).
Jagannath Masaji Bansode vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 5 February, 2020
37. As regards reliance placed on behalf of respondent No.3-
PCMC on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ashok s/o.
Masu Bansode & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (supra),
suffice it to say that the said judgment is distinguishable on facts.
In the said case, the acquisition was under the provisions of the
::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2026 20:51:00 :::
bipin prithiani
26
wp-1397.17.doc
Act of 2013 by way of private negotiations and in terms of the
provisions of the said Act, the land owner was already paid 25%
additional compensation. It was in this context that certain
observations were made with regard to entitlement of rental
compensation under the LA Act and Government Resolutions. In
the present case, the respondent No.3-PCMC simply walked into
the property of the petitioner in August 2003 for establishing
octroi post. Subsequently, it executed the aforesaid document
dated 24th February 2006 titled as agreement/taba pavati
(possession receipt).