Dismissed

Soma Vithoba Talpe v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Mar 2009PIL/179/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the State Government's construction of dams without purpose, affecting tribals and public exchequer. The Court noted the State justified the projects for irrigation and welfare. The Court found authorities justified the erection and dismissed the petition, directing the State to ensure compensation and rehabilitation.

What did the court decide?

petition disposed of; State directed to ensure payment of compensation and rehabilitation to affected persons.

Soma Vithoba Talpe Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Environment and Pollution | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

 [-1-]

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
 PIL NO.179 OF 2007

¶3

 Shri.Soma Vithoba Talpe ..Petitioner
 Vs.

¶4

 State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..Respondents

¶5

 ....
 Petitioner in person present
 Mr.R.P.Behre AGP for Respondent Nos.1, 3 to 6

¶6

 CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND
SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ.
 DATE : MARCH 4, 2009

¶7

P.C.

¶8

 1. The Petitioner is present in person.

¶9

 2. Heard.

¶10

 3. The Petitioner has approached this Court with a
 grievance that the Respondent-State Government has
 been erecting dams without any purpose causing huge
 loss to the public exchequer resulting in uprooting
 the agriculturists particularly tribals who are
 affected by the project. He has also espoused the
 cause of project affected persons and their
 rehabilitation.

¶11

 4. In addition to the general grievances made in
 the petition against the policy of the State
 Government in constructing more than six dams on
 one river, which according to the Petitioner, is

¶12

 [-2-]

¶13

 not required as it is not serving any purpose. It
 is his case that he has not received compensation
 in respect of his own land. We have gone through
 the affidavits in reply. In the affidavit in reply
 filed by the Secretary to Government, Water
 Resources Department, Mantralaya Mumbai, it has
 been clarified that six dams (project) were
 required to be erected for the benefits of the
 people at large and he has spelt out the benefits
 of dams and irrigation which includes the
 stabilization of water supply, the welfare of
 native population and a relative decrease in
 deforestation of land for agriculture, availability
 of drinking water and water for industrial use and
 the potential opportunities which are created for
 employment. The detail information is furnished in
 paragraph 5 of the affidavit. In so far as the
 case of the Petitioner is concerned, it has been
 specifically stated by the Special Land Acquisition
 Officer that reference under Section 30 of the Land
 Acquisition Act, has already been made to the
 District Court. In affidavit filed by Special Land
 Acquisition Officer, Pune, it is stated that the
 matter has been referred and copy of the
 communication made to the District Judge while

¶14

 [-3-]

¶15

 forwarding the reference is annexed at Exhibit-I
 and sum of Rs.1,52,651/- is also credited in the
 Court. The Petitioner can very well contest the
 matter before the Reference Court and get his share
 of compensation adjudicated. We therefore, find
 that the authorities have been able to justify the
 erection of project and the Petitioner has not been
 able to place on record failure on the part of the
 State in rehabilitating the project affected
 persons. In so far as the persons whose land have
 been acquired for the purpose of erection of dams
 is concerned, they must have been paid
 compensation, if in any case compensation is not
 paid, the State would take necessary steps to see
 that they are paid compensation and statutory
 interest as provided under the Land Acquisition Act
 and also rehabilitated as per the Statute.

¶16

 5. We do not think it necessary to order any
 inquiry by Central Bureau of Investigation into the
 matter.

¶17

 6. With the above directions, we dispose of the
 petition.

¶18

[J.N.PATEL, J.]

¶19

 [-4-]

¶20

 [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]

Soma Vithoba Talpe v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soma Vithoba Talpe 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

Pravin Bhimrao Wadmare and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pravin Bhimrao Wadmare and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pankaj Anil Jawadekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dinesh Mukund Gudhekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Gajanan Laxman Bhakare Vs Indian National Congress (Inc) and Ors.

Chamber of Small Industry Association Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Maza Bharat Samajik Sanstha Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Gajanan Laxman Bhakare Vs Indian National Congress (Inc) and Ors.

Shaikh Shafi F. M. Dilliwale and Ors. Vs Dr. Krishna Lavekar and Ors.

Zubeda Rajmohammad Qureshi Vs the Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Bombay and 4 Ors.

Dr.Shirish G.Deshpande Vs Smt.Nathibai Damodar Thackersay Women'S University and Ors.

Engineering Labour Union Vs Sainath Engineering Works

The Dawoodbhoy Fazalbhoy Muslim Edu. Trust and Ors. Vs Shri Kanhaiyalal Motilal Talera

Mr. Sachin Saharad Kamble Vs 1. Navi Mumbai Mahanagarpalika Transport Service and Anr.