Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DAILYLAW 2464 (BOM)

VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPN., THR. EX. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION , DIVN.,2,CHIKHLI v. ANAND DAGDU SONTTAKE

FA/634/2012 · 2026-06-17

Shri Sushil M Ghodeswar

body2012

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 / 2 362.fa634.2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR FIRST APPEAL NO. 634 OF 2012 VIDARBHA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPN. CHIKHLI VS ANAND DAGDU SONTTAKE AND ANR. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Nikhil Waghmare, Advocate h/ Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate for appellant. Mr. H.D. Dubey, AGP for respondent/State. CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. DATE : 17.06.2026 Mr. Waghmare, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant fairly states that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had granted the compensation at the rate of Rs.54,806/- per hectare in respect of the land bearing Gut No.36/08, admeasuring 2 H and 02 R situated at Mauza Dongargaon, Tq. Chikhali, District – Buldhana, which was acquired for the purpose of construction of minor irrigation project. Since the claimants were not satisfied with the said assessment therefore, they filed the reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Buldhana, which came to be registered as LAC No.19/2000. Prity 2 / 2 362.fa634.2012 2. In view of the Government Resolution dated 03.11.2016 and the corrigendum dated 13.08.2018, it is prescribed that if the enhanced rate is less than four times the rate awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of lands situated in rural areas, the State Government or the acquiring bodies shall not prefer an appeal. 3. In view of the aforesaid Government Resolution and Corrigendum, the present appeal does not survive and is accordingly disposed of. [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J] Prity