Dismissed

Manik Ambadas Labade v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Jun 2009WP/437/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging a land acquisition award dated 01.01.1992. The bench held the petition was extremely belated given the pendency of civil appeals and noted the petitioner was already entitled to compensation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition summarily dismissed with no order as to costs.

Manik Ambadas Labade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 437 OF 2009

¶4

Manik s/o Ambadas Labade,

¶5

PETITIONER.

¶6

V E R S U S

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and another

¶8

RESPONDENTS.

¶9

Shri K. S. Bhore, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Shri N.B. Khandare, Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 Shri K. K. Kulkarni, Advocate for the respondent No.3.

¶11

CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND R. K. DESHPANDE, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 8th JUNE, 2009.

¶13

PER COURT :-

¶14

This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶15

of India by which the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside

¶16

an award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 01.01.1992.

¶17

The grounds which are set out in the petition for challenging the aforesaid

¶18

award can be rulled out as under :

¶19

i. The acquisition proceedings have been initiated in gross

¶20

violation of the protection guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India.

¶21

¶22

ii. That notice u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is neither

¶23

issued not served on the petitioner.

¶24

Iii. No opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner for

¶25

raising objection u/s 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶26

iv. That no individual notice to the petitioner as contemplated under section 9 (3) (4) of the Land Acquisition Act was served on the

¶27

petitioner.

¶28

v. That Writ petition namely Writ Petition No.880 of 1990 was

¶29

pending.

¶30

vi. The second appeal No.34 of 1997 is also pending in this

¶31

Court.

¶32

Vii. Award has been passed without following the principle of

¶33

natural justice and

¶34

ix. The acquisition of the land of the petitioner is in utter violation of the protection guaranteed under Article 14, 19 (1) (g), 21 of

¶35

the Constitution of India.

¶36

Mr. K. S. Bhore the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that award has been passed in utter violation of the

¶37

mandate of section 11 (A) of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶38

¶39

The petitioner claims to be the owner of land situated in

¶40

Sr.No.189 i.e CTS No.914 admeasuring 1950 sq. meters which came to be purchased by the petitioner by registered sale deed for a consideration of

¶41

Rs.5,000/-. It appears that the petitioner being aggrieved by certain action filed Special Civil Suit No.25/1974 against the third respondent and other tenants for the declaration that he was the owner of the property. According to the petitioner on 09.07.1978suit came to be decreed in favour

¶42

of the petitioner. Meanwhile respondent No.3 Municipal Corporation preferred First Appeal No.608/1978 before this Court but it ultimately came to be remanded back to the District Judge on account of increase of pecuniary jurisdiction of District Judge to hear civil appeals. Said first appeal came to be allowed by the Appellate Court on 18.07.1997 against which the petitioner has filed second appeal bearing no.34/1997 in this Court and the same is said to be pending and an order of status-quo has been granted in favour of the petitioner. According to the petitioner in 1992, land acquisition proceeding came to be initiated and the land which belongs to the petitioner came to be acquired. The petitioner filed RCS No.154/1995 before Civil Judge Senior Division for setting aside the award which was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Aforesaid suit came to

¶43

be decreed exparte by the judgment and decree dated 12.08.1996. The

¶44

¶45

respondent No.3 Municipal Council there after preferred First Appeal challenging exparte judgment and decree and the appellate Court again

¶46

remanded the appeal back to the Trial Court. Trial Court dismissed the

¶47

suit for want of jurisdiction. No challenge was raised in respect of the judgment and decree of the trial court dismissing the suit for want of jurisdiction.

¶48

On notice of this petition being issued to the respondents, respondents have filed their affidavit in reply. The affidavit in reply of respondent no.3 discloses that during the acquisition proceedings a reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act came to be made to the Reference Court and the Reference Court answered the reference and

¶49

held that the petitioner herein was entitled to receive the compensation from the State of Maharashtra in respect of the same land which is the subject matter of the writ petition. The learned single judge of this Court by his order dated 02.09.2003 dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner by holding that compensation could be released in favour of the petitioner in respect of land S.No. 189/CTS No.914. This fact and fact of decision of reference court have all been suppressed by the petitioner in this petition.

¶50

¶51

The petitioner has already been held entitled, to receive the

¶52

compensation though the petitioner claims not to have withdrawn the said

¶53

amount. The challenge to the award which is dated 01.01.1992 is extremely

¶54

belated and the challenge to the Award for breach of mandate of Section

¶55

11-A is not raised in the petition.

¶56

Upon giving anxious consideration to the submissions

¶57

advanced, we therefore summarily dismiss the writ petition with no order

¶58

as to costs.

¶59

( R. K. DESHPANDE ) ( P. V. HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶60

aaa/office/wp437.09

Manik Ambadas Labade v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manik Ambadas Labade 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

Tukaram Laxman Suse Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Kiran Bhaskarrao Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Balaji Tulshiram Argade and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Balaji Tulshiram Argade and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.