Dismissed

Mrs. Vasanti Pravin Rathod and Anr. v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ros.

Bombay HC19 Apr 2005WP/2989/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a 1998 Land Acquisition Award under the M.R.T.P. Act, noting the significant delay in approach and lack of jurisdiction under Section 126. The court clarified that failure to serve Section 12 notice does not bar a reference application.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed

Mrs. Vasanti Pravin Rathod and Anr. Vs the Special Land… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2989 of 2004

¶4

Vasanti Pravin Rathod & Anr....Petitioners

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.7 & Anr Mr. V.J. Hegde, for the Petitioner Ms. Geeta Shastri, AGP for Respondent No.1

¶7

.......Respondents

¶8

Mrs. Shobha Ajit Kumar for Respondent No.2

¶9

CORAM: F.I. REBELLO & S.P.KUKDAY, JJ. DATE : 19th April,2005

¶10

P.C.

¶11

. The Award was passed in the year 1998. The possession

¶12

of the land has been taken. The acquisition is under the

¶13

provisions of the M.R.T.P. Act.

¶14

The challenge by the petitioner is firstly that no

¶15

notice	was served	on	th	e		petitione	r.	The	Awa	rd	discloses	that
there	has	been	publi	ca	tion	as	contem	plated	bot	h	under	Section
4 an	d Section	6	of		the	Land	Acquisitio	n Act	.	It	is	then
contended	that the	awa	rd	w	as	not	passed	within	tw	o	years.	The
acquisition	is	under	Se	cti	on	126	of	the	M.R.T.	P.Act	and	hence
that	contention	as	of		toda	y is	not	availabl	e.	Last	ly it	is
contended	that	the	pro	vi	sions	of	Section	126	have		not	been
followed.	The	Award	w	as		made	in	the	year	19	96.	The
petitioners	have	come	to		this	Court	in	the	year	2004.		There
is con	siderable d	elay,	more			so	considering	th	e j	udgme	nt of	the
Apex	Court	in	the	c	ase	of	Municipal	Cou	ncil,	Ahme	dnagar	Vs.