VITTHAL S/O NAMDEO PATIL vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA — C.A. No. 8750/2013

Case under Section III. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010133492012

Filing Date

17-Apr-2012

Registration No

C.A. No. 8750/2013

Diary Number

13349/2012

Order Date

01-Feb-2022

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Appeals Allowed

Last updated 06-Jul-2026

Acts & Sections

Section III

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.VITTHAL S/O NAMDEO PATIL

    Adv. SHIRISH K. DESHPANDE[P-1]

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

    Adv. SACHIN PATIL[R-1]

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Feb-2022

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 01-Feb-2022

    Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week

    Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy

  4. 17-Jul-2020

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 17-Jul-2020

    Mention Memo

    Hon'ble The Chief Justice and Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi

  6. 16-May-2018

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 16-May-2018

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 15-Jul-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 15-Jul-2016

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 23-Sep-2013

    Office Report - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 23-Sep-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 29-Apr-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 20-Mar-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 15-Feb-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 27-Aug-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 17-Apr-2012

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 8750/2013

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Vitthal S/O Namdeo Patil v. The State of Maharashtra Outcome: The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal on February 1, 2022. While upholding the High Court's land compensation of Rs. 15,000 per acre (enhanced from Rs. 10,000), the Court granted the appellant the benefit of Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act, which the High Court had overlooked. The Court rejected the appellant's other claims regarding higher compensation and separate benefits under Section 3(a) as insufficiently evidenced and not previously raised. Next Steps: The appeal was disposed of with the High Court judgment confirmed except for the Section 34 benefit. Each party bears its own costs. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case