Dismissed

Jagannath Narhari Talekar and Ors. v. District Collector, Satara and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Dec 2008WP/6782/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an award dated 6-6-2008 under the Land Acquisition Act, alleging non-compliance with procedural timelines. The Court noted the filing of a related civil suit and the start of canal work. Finding no grounds to interfere, the Court dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with no interference in the impugned award dated 6-6-2008.

Jagannath Narhari Talekar and Ors. Vs District Collector… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

 : 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.6782 OF 2008

¶3

 Shri Jagannath Narhari Talekar ...Petitioner.
 V/s.
 District Collector, Satara & Ors. ...Respondents.

¶4

 Mr.D.M.Gupte , adv. for the Petitioner.

¶5

 Mr.Vijay Patil , adv. for the Respondent Nos.3 and 4.

¶6

 Mr.V.S.Gokhale, G.P. for the Respondent Nos.1,2 and 5.

¶7

 CORAM: Bilal Nazki&
J.H.Bhatia,JJ.
 DATE : 3rd December, 2008.

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

 1. Award dated 6-6-2008 has been challenged in this

¶10

 petition on the ground that the procedure laid down under

¶11

 the Land Acquisition Act for acquiring land was not
 complied. In counter affidavit filed by the respondent in
 paragraph 5, dates have given when notices were issued
 under Sections 4, 5A and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.
 Date of passing the award has also been mentioned. One of
 the grounds was that the award was not passed within a
 period of two years from the date of Notification under
 Section 6 was published. This is also disputed. It is
 submitted that the notice under Section 6 was displayed on
 Chawdi on 29-9-2006 and the award was passed on 31st May,
 2008. The contention that the award was passed on 6-6-2008

¶12

 : 2 :

¶13

 as such, is denied. We understand from the counter that

¶14

 the petitioners have filed a suit in the year 2005, which
 is pending in the Civil Court in which the petitioners
 sought a declaration that the canal should not be dug up in
 the lands belonging to the petitioners. From the counter
 affidavit, it is also understood that this is a prestigious
 irrigation project. On completion, it will irrigate 43050
 hectares of land across many Talukas. The work of digging
 of canal is also started in the lands of the petitioners
 according to the counter affidavit and the petitioners
 counsel conceded that they have also moved an application
 for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶15

 2. In this view of the matter, we do not feel that
 there is any ground to interfere in the petition. The
 petition is dismissed.

¶16

(Bilal Nazki, J.)

¶17

(J.H.Bhatia, J.)

Jagannath Narhari Talekar and Ors. v. District Collector, Satara and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagannath Narhari Talekar and Ors. v. District Collector, Satara 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

Friends of Lepers Society,Pune. Vs the State of Maharashtra.

Dr. Arun Kumar Aggarwal Vs Indian Academy of Pediatrics and Ors.

Dasharath Dagadu Ghule and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Gopal Bhaurao Deshmukh Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sangli District Taxi-Maxi Cab Panchayat Vs the Divisional Transport Authority, Kolhapur Division and Ors.

Gopinath Raghu Nawle Vs Government of Maharashtra and Ors.