Disposed

Harishchandra Valku Bhagat (Decd.)by Lrs.- Hirubai Harishchandra Bhagat and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Oct 2008WP/4384/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment addresses an undetermined application from the State of Maharashtra under the Land Acquisition Act. The High Court criticized the State's four-year silence after a hearing. The court directed the State to decide the redetermination application within eight weeks and awarded costs.

What did the court decide?

Order directing the party to decide the application under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act within 8 weeks; S.L.O. to pay costs of Rs. 5000.

Harishchandra Valku Bhagat (Decd.)by Lrs.- Hirubai… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

-1-

¶2

mgj

¶3

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 Writ Petition No. 4384 of 2008

¶5

 Harishchandra Valku Bhagat
 since deceased through his
 legal representatives
 1.Hirubai Harishchandraas
 Bhagat and others ..Petitioners

¶6

vs.

¶7

 1. The State of Maharashtra
 and others ..Respondents

¶8

 Shri S.S.Punde for petitioners.
 Shri V.A.Sopan A.G.P. for respondent State.

¶9

CORAM: J.N.PATEL &
S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ.
 14th October, 2008

¶10

P.C.

¶11

 1. The petitioners are poor agriculturists who
 being unable to prefer reference under section 18
 of the Land Acquisition Act,1894, for enhancement
 of the compensation of the acquired lands,
 preferred application dated 13th March, 2003 under
 section 28A of the said Act. However, though the
 application was completely heard (four years back),
 no decision is taken by respondent no.1 by
 declaring redetermined award under section 28A of
 the said Act. The petitioners were, therefore,
 compelled to file the present writ petition seeking

¶12

-2-

¶13

 a direction to respondent no.1 to declare the
 redetermined Award in proceedings under section 28A
 in Unit Case No.Kamothe 326 forthwith. The learned
 A.G.P. leaves the matter to the Court to pass
 appropriate orders.

¶14

 2. It is unfortunate that despite the application
 being completely heard the respondent no.1 without
 any valid reason/excuse has since last four years
 not responded to the petitioners’ application in
 respect of redetermination of the Award. In view
 thereof we direct the respondent no.1 to decide the
 application under sec.28A of the Land Acquisition
 Act preferred by the petitioner within a period of
 8 weeks from today. The aforesaid conduct portrays
 absolutely callous and indifferent approach of the
 authorities towards poor and helpless citizens, who
 despite their weak financial status are compelled
 to knock the doors of the Court only to receive an
 order in respect of an application which was heard
 and concluded four years back by the respondent
 no.1.

¶15

 3. We, therefore, direct the S.L.O. to pay costs
 of this petition quantified at Rs.5000/- to the

¶16

-3-

¶17

 petitioners from his own pocket.

¶18

 4. Learned A.G.P. undertakes to communicate this

¶19

 order to respondent no.1.

¶20

(S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (J.N.PATEL J.)

Harishchandra Valku Bhagat (Decd.)by Lrs.- Hirubai Harishchandra Bhagat and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harishchandra Valku Bhagat (Decd.)by Lrs.- Hirubai Harishchandra Bhagat and Ors. v. the 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

Khatal Ahmad M. Kaseem Dandu Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sanjay G. Jadhav and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jitan Yadav S/O. Late Lallu Yadav Vs Union of India and Ors.

Arun a. Trivedi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Baburao Daji Virkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Municipal Commissioner - Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai and Anr. Vs Swapnil v. Tempe and Anr.