Disposed

nirmala samant-prabhavalkar and Anr. v. state of maharashtra (through the principal secratary,revenue and foreste department,mum and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC10 Jan 2008PIL/76/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay addressed a prayer regarding a misunderstanding of a previous order on deposit of funds, granting a final one-week extension. The Court also directed the State to implement a rehabilitation scheme without further delay and listed the matter for compliance.

What did the court decide?

One week to deposit money; no further extension; direction to implement rehabilitation scheme.

nirmala samant-prabhavalkar and Anr. Vs state of maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO.2025 OF 2004

¶4

 WITH
 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.76 OF 2007

¶5

 Appa Pada Rahivasi Seva Sangh .. Petitioner.

¶6

 Versus

¶7

 State of Maharashtra & Others .. Respondents.

¶8

 Mr.Mahesh Londhe i/by M/s.S. Udeshi & Co. for the
 petitioner in W.P. No.2025/04.

¶9

 Mr.Santosh Narawade i/by Mr.M.M. Vashi for the
 petitioner in PIL 76/07.

¶10

 Mr.D.A. Nalawade for the State.

¶11

 Mr.Suresh Patil i/by Utangale & Co. for SRA.

¶12

 Mr.Vaibhav Sughdare for respondent No.5.

¶13

CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. &
 J.P. DEVADHAR, J.

¶14

DATED : 24th January, 2008
 P.C. :

¶15

 1. In P.I.L. No.76 of 2007, praecipe has been

¶16

 moved on behalf of the petitioner, as a result
 whereof Writ Petition No.2025 of 2004 has also been
 listed before this Court.

¶17

 It is stated before us that there is some
 misunderstanding with regard to the time postulated
 in clause 4 (ii) of order dated 10-1-2008. The
 petitioners have prayed period to be granted by the
 Court for deposit of money as six weeks and not two

¶18

¶19

 weeks as recorded in the order. We find no occasion
 to entertain such a contention. The order is clear
 and unambiguous and we see no reason for any
 misunderstanding arising out of the order in
 question and this praecipe is moved on 21-1-2008
 when the order was passed on 10-1-2008. Be that as
 it may and despite our above observations, we are
 inclined to grant a final opportunity to the persons
 who are eligible in terms of the policy of the State
 to deposit the money in terms of clause 4(ii) within
 one week from today. We make it clear that no
 further extension will be granted for this purpose
 and in any circumstances, the Government shall not
 accept any payment thereafter.

¶20

 2. This direction is necessitated as ultimately
 the judgment of this Court has to be taken to its
 logical end. The Court cannot keep on passing
 orders which are not implemented by the State. The
 State must discharge its statutory obligation and
 also ensure that orders of the Court are implemented
 in their true spirit and substance.

¶21

 3. The Petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.305
 of 1995 which is already disposed of by this Court
 points out that the Government is not taking any
 action despite the fact that 11000 square metres of
 land has already been acquired by the Government at

¶22

¶23

 Kalyan, where considerable amount of approximately
 Rs.12 crores has been provided for infrastructure.
 However, the petitioners contend that the site has
 now been shifted to Chandivli.

¶24

 4. The Government is expected to act and
 implement the rehabilitation scheme without any
 further delay. We have already made it clear that
 no further time would be allowed for compliance of
 the directions contained in the order dated
 10-1-2008 as well as previous orders passed by the
 different Benches of this Court. The Government
 should take steps to rehabilitate the people at the
 appropriate site and even if now there is increase
 in the number of eligible persons to be accommodated
 under the rehabilitation scheme, as per the
 prescribed criteria, obviously the Government has
 place at Kalyan as well as at Chandivli.

¶25

 5. List this matter for compliance before this
 Court on 27th March, 2008.

¶26

 CHIEF JUSTICE

¶27

 J.P. DEVADHAR, J.

nirmala samant-prabhavalkar and Anr. v. state of maharashtra (through the principal secratary,revenue and foreste department,mum and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

nirmala samant-prabhavalkar and Anr. v. state of maharashtra (through the principal secratary,revenue and foreste department,mum and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Unikrishnan K. Panickar Vs the Union of India and 10 Ors.

Nandkumar Dnyandeo Gondhali Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shyam Pandurang Nadkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Sanjay Ramchandra Shirke Vs Bombay Municipal Corpn. and 2 Ors.

Kiran Devkumar Jadhav and Anr. Vs the City Survey Officer, Sangli and Ors.

Shetkari Sangharsh Samitee and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shetkari Sangharsh Samitee and Anr. Vs M/S.Maharashtra Energy Generation Limited and Ors.

Shetkari Sangharsh Samitee and Anr. Vs M/S. Patni Energy Private Ltd. and Ors.

Balkrishna Ramdhar Lakhotia Vs Smt. Pratima Sunil Lakhoita

Sunil Lakhotia Vs Pratima Lakhotia

Shri R.K. Shinde and Another Vs Shekoba Auto Private Limited and Others

Appa Pada Rahivashi Seva Sangh Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sakharam Parasharam Ghaste Vs Municipal Corporation of Brihn Mumbai and Anr.

Chandramani Devraj Tiwari Vs the Sec-Ramdulari B.Tiwari Sanskrutik Kendra andORS.