Disposed

Hiru Nathu Nikalje and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC25 Oct 2007WP/7943/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court, in a writ petition, directed the Land Acquisition Officer to dispose of a land reference application filed under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, within three months if the underlying awards are final. If appeals are pending, disposal is directed only after appeal disposal or government acquiescence.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the Land Acquisition Officer to dispose of Section 28 application within three months.

Hiru Nathu Nikalje and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO. 7943 OF 2007

¶3

 1. Hiru Nahu Nikalje & 11 ors. ] .. Petitioners

¶4

 Versus

¶5

 1. State of Maharashtra & 2 ors. ] .. Respondents

¶6

 Mr. Yuvraj D. Warghade i/b C.G. Gavnekar for the
 petitioners.

¶7

 Mr. A.H. Palekar, AGP, for the respondents.

¶8

CORAM: S.B. MHASE &
D.G. KARNIK, JJ.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

 1. Heard. Rule. Returnable forthwith. With the

¶11

 consent of the parties, taken up for hearing.

¶12

 2. The petitioner has approached this Court

¶13

 seeking a direction that the land reference filed by the
 petitioner under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act,
 1894 (for short "the said Act") may be directed to be
 disposed of within a stipulated time by the Land
 Acquisition Officer, relying upon the judgment and award
 passed in L.A.R.Nos. 45 of 1991 to 48 of 1991 and 90 of

¶14

 1991 to 93 of 1991 and to make payment of the

¶15

 : 2 :

¶16

 compensation accordingly. Mr. A.H. Palekar, the
 learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents
 states that he has no objection if such directions are
 given to the Land Acquisition Officer to decide the land
 reference filed by the petitioner under Section 28 of
 the said Act within a stipulated period. We asked the
 learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the
 awards and the decrees passed in L.A.R.Nos.45 of 1991 to
 48 of 1991 and 90 of 1991 to 93 of 1991 have attained
 finality and/or whether the Government has acquiesced
 the said award. The learned counsel expressed his
 inability to make a statement in respect of finality
 being obtained by the said award. He, however,
 submitted that relying upon the said award in some other
 matters, the Land Acquisition Officer has calculated the
 compensation under Section 28 and made the payments. Be
 that as it may, what we find is that this Writ Petition
 can be disposed by issuing the following directions.

¶17

 3. The Land Acquisition Officer is directed to
 dispose of the application filed by the petitioner under
 Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, within a
 period of three months in accordance with law, if the
 L.A.R. awards upon which the petitioner relies have
 attained finality and/or the Government has acquiesced
 the said award, we further direct that in case the

¶18

 : 3 :

¶19

 Appeal as against the L.A.R. Nos.45 of 1991 to 48 of
 1991 and 90 of 1991 to 93 of 1991 is pending and/or if
 the award passed under the land reference is not
 acquiesced by the Government, then the Land Acquisition
 Officer shall dispose of the application of the
 petitioner under Section 28 within a period of three
 months after the disposal of the First Appeal preferred
 against the L.A.R.Nos.45 of 1991 to 48 of 1991 and 90 of
 1991 to 93 of 1991 and/or on acquiescence of the said
 award by the Government, whichever event occurs earlier.

¶20

 4. With the above directions, the Writ Petition
 is disposed of.

¶21

 Sd/- Sd/-
 [D.G. KARNIK, J.] [S.B. MHASE, J.]

Hiru Nathu Nikalje and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hiru Nathu Nikalje and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra 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

Sudhir S/O. Narandas Marolia Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Maruti Vithoba Koli Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Madhukar Hiraman Kasture Vs General Manager (East-I) Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. and Ors.

Aziz Karim Shaikh and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pawan Ashok Aher and Anr. Vs the Divisional Secretary - Maharashtra State Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board and Anr.

Suhas Kedari Mahadik Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.