← Library
Bombay High CourtFA/4388/2017dismissedrule discharged

The State Of Maharashtra And Others v. Santosh Kashiram Patil

2017-04-18Hon'Ble Shri Justice V.K. Jadhav3 pages

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 4009 OF 2013 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4840 OF 2013 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

VERSUS

PUNAJI SHRIPAT PATIL WITH FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 4018 OF 2013 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4843 OF 2013 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

VERSUS

PANDURANG NARAYAN SHIRSATH WITH FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 4012 OF 2013 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4846 OF 2013 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

VERSUS

SUKDEV NATTHU KALE WITH FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 4015 OF 2013 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4848 OF 2013 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

VERSUS

SANTOSH KASHIRAM PATIL WITH FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 4021 OF 2013 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4850 OF 2013 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

VERSUS

ASHOK MOTIRAM PATIL

-2WITH FIRST APPEAL (ST.) NO. 4025 OF 2013 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4852 OF 2013 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

VERSUS

SANTOSH KASHIRAM PATIL ...

AGP for Applicants : Mr. S.S. Dande .....

CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J.

DATED : 18th APRIL, 2017 PER COURT:- 1.

All these appeals deal with acquisition of the house properties of the claimants on account of submergence of area under Waghur Dam.

2.

A group of First Appeals bearing First Appeal No.3060 of 2013 with connected First Appeals came to be disposed of by this Court (Coram : S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) vide judgment and order dated 19/12/2013, thereby upholding the valuation made by the Reference Court in respect of the land at Rs.600/- per R, however, had granted enhancement of compensation in respect of the structures, wherein the Valuer's report was considered by this Court and had deducted 10% from the said Valuer's report. In para 7, 8 and 9, it was observed as under :- "7.

The Court has appreciated the evidence on record and had come to the conclusion that he accepts the valuation report. But then no reason is given for deducting the amount in some of the matters up to 60% to 75% and in majority of matters 25%.

-38.

There may be some error. To work out the said margin of error, some deduction would be permissible from the amount as suggested by the Valuer. Considering the fact that. the properties acquired are lands and small houses the margin of error would also be less.

9.

In the light of the above, it would be appropriate to deduct 10% from the valuation as shown by the expert. 3.

In a group of First Appeals bearing First Appeal No.2745/2015 with connected First Appeals, this Court (Coram : S. V. Gangapurwala, J.), vide judgment and order dated 21/10/2015, disposed of the said Appeals arising out of the same project and the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in the light of the observations made earlier as referred in para No.2 of this order, bearing First Appeal No.3060/2013 with connected First Appeals.

4.

In view of the above, there is no reason to take any other view. There is no substance in the appeals. All the First Appeals are thus liable to be dismissed.

5.

In view of disposal of the First Appeals, Civil Applications for stay do not survive and same are disposed of.

( V. K. JADHAV, J.) rlj/