Petitioner sought compensation for land acquisition and benefits under the 12.5% scheme. The Court held the Petitioner was not a party to the Reference and could determine rights via a civil suit.
Writ petition disposed of, leaving rights determination open for a civil suit.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 506 OF 2005
Smt. Bebibai Hanuman Patil ... Petitioner
Versus
CIDCO Limited and Ors. ... Respondents
Mr. Rajiv Patil for Petitioners.
Mr. G.S. Hegde i/by G.S. Hegde & Assocaites for
R. No. 1.
Mr. V.P. Malvankar, A.G.P. for R. No. 2.
Mr. P.S. Dani for R. No. 3.
CORAM : F.I. REBELLO &
DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD,JJ.
DATED : FEBRUARY 20, 2006
P.C.
. It is the case of the Petitioner that they are
entitled to compensation for acquisition of Land as
also benefits of the 12.5% scheme.
. It appears that the petitioners were not parties
to the Reference nor have they moved under Section
18. Considering that it will be open to the
Petitioner to take such steps in law for getting
their rights determined or declared including by
way of civil suit, if in law it is maintainable.
With the above observations, petition disposed of.
(F.I. REBELLO,J.)
2
(DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Petitioner is entitled to compensation and benefits under a 12.5% scheme for acquisition of land.
Whether proceedings under Section 18 are maintainable by the Petitioner.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Bebibai Hanuman Patil
CIDCO Limited
F.I. REBELLO
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court