Dismissed

Kewalchand Hirachand Oswal and Anr. v. the Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Oct 2007WP/7850/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging the publication of a declaration under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962, finding that the petitioners were served notice and heard, and the alleged proposal to construct a road was misinformation.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the impugned declaration dated 27th April, 2005 is dismissed.

Kewalchand Hirachand Oswal and Anr. Vs the Union of India… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.7850 OF 2007

¶5

 Kewalchand Hirachand Oswal & anr. .. Petitioners

¶6

vs.

¶7

 Union of India & 5 ors. .. Respondents

¶8

 Mr.G.S.Godbole for the petitioners

¶9

 Mr.Rajendra Raghuwanshi, Addl.Solicitor General with
 Mr.R.V.Govilkar and Ms.Rutuza Ambekar for the
 respondent no.1

¶10

 Mr.Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate with Mr.Manish
 Pradhan i/b Junarkar and Associates for the respondent
 no.2

¶11

 Ms.M.P.Thakkar, A.G.P. for the respondent nos.5 and 6

¶12

CORAM: J.N. PATEL &
 A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶13

 DATE: 25TH OCTOBER, 2007.

¶14

 P.C.

¶15

 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

 2. The petition has been filed by the land owner

¶17

 seeking cancellation of the impugned declaration dated
 27th April, 2005 bearing No.S.O.1606 published in the

¶18

¶19

 Gazette of India dated 30th April, 2005 Part II under
 section 3 sub section (ii) in respect of the land of
 the petitioners bearing Gat No.141 of Village
 Pimpriwadi, Taluka Maval, District Pune. The claim of
 the petitioners is founded on two grounds. Firstly,
 that the petitioners were not served with a notice
 before the impugned declaration came to be issued
 under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines
 (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962 (Act
 50 of 1962) which has deprived them of an opportunity
 of being heard in the matter particularly when the
 constitutional right of owning the land has been
 affected and secondly, that the respondents propose to
 construct a road on their land which is not permitted
 under the said Act, 50 of 1962 and further, this
 cannot be done unless their land is acquired in
 accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition
 Act, 1894.

¶20

 3. In reply, our attention has been drawn to the
 fact that the petitioners were served with notice as
 contemplated under the Act, in response to which the
 petitioners have not only filed their objection
 through their advocate but were also given a hearing.

¶21

¶22

 It is further contended that there is no proposal of
 constructing any road on the land of the petitioners.
 The respondents would be only using the land for the
 purpose of laying down underground pipelines for which
 the petitioners would be entitled for compensation as
 provided under the said Act 50 of 1962.

¶23

 4. On seeking instruction from the petitioners
 who are present in court, the learned counsel for the
 petitioners submits that the first contention of the
 petitioners is that they were not served with any
 notice before the impugned application was made
 seeking acquisition or right of user of their land
 under the said Act 50 of 1962. In so far as it
 relates to petitioner no.1, he concedes that
 petitioner was served with notice and afforded an
 opportunity of being heard. In respect of petitioner
 no.2, the learned counsel for the petitioners is not
 able to controvert what is contended on behalf of the
 respondent.

¶24

 5. Therefore, this court finds that the very
 basis on which the petitioners have challenged the
 impugned publication that the petitioners were not

¶25

¶26

 heard in the matter does not survive as the

¶27

 petitioners are co-owners of the land in question and
 one of the co-owners admits the receipt of notice and
 being given an opportunity of hearing, the other
 co-owner is unable to substantiate his case of having
 been denied a hearing.

¶28

 6. The other ground that the respondents propose
 to lay down the road on the land of the petitioners is
 probably gathered on misinformation as it is
 categorically stated on behalf of the respondents that
 there is no proposal to construct a road on the land
 of the petitioners.

¶29

 7. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the
 petition and the same is dismissed.

¶30

 (J.N. Patel, J. )

¶31

 (A.A. Sayed, J. )

Kewalchand Hirachand Oswal and Anr. v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kewalchand Hirachand Oswal and Anr. v. the Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Adheer Ramesh Pai Vs Sweta Adheer Pai

Shamsunder Haribhau Potare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Karbhari Ramchandra Shinde Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation

Mr. Manny C. D`Mello and Ors. Vs Bank of Maharashtra

Pannalal S. S. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs M/S Engineering Project India Ltd. and Anr.