Allowed

Vinayak Kacharu Andhale and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Jul 2009WP/599/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench allowed a writ petition seeking compensation for lands acquired between 1998 and 1998 for a percolation tank. The court directed respondents to pay compensation within one year if the lands were indeed acquired for that specific purpose.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondents to pay compensation to petitioners for specified lands within one year of the order, conditional on verification of the land's acquisition purpose.

Vinayak Kacharu Andhale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

{1}

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.599 OF 2009

¶4

Vinayak Kachru Andhale 2. Navnath Gahininath Dasrade 3. Tulshiram Bhivashen Khedkar 4. Subhash Maruti Darade All R/o Ghogas Pargaon Tq-Shirur, Dist-Beed PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through Government Pleader High Court of Bombay Bench At Aurangabad 2. The Collector, Beed 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer JP No.2, Beed 4. The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Barshi Road, Beed RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.D.R.Jaybhar, Advocate for petitioners Mr.K.B.Chaudhari, Addl.G.P. for respondents No.1 to 3 .......

¶5

[CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 20^th July 2009

¶6

{2}

¶7

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.):

¶8

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

¶9

Limited grievance of the petitioners in this petition is for directions to pass an award in respect of lands Gut No.67, 68, 69, 70 and 306, which have been acquired by the respondents some time in the year 1998 for the purpose of construction of a percolation tank at village Ghogas Pargaon, Tq-Shirur, Dist-Beed. The petitioners also pray that the respondents No.2 and 3 be directed to pay compensation to the petitioners.

¶10

Notice of this petition had been issued to the respondents and respondents No.1 to 3 are represented by learned AGP Mr.Chaudhari. None appears on behalf of respondent No.4, though served. We are informed that the respondent No.4 is the acquiring body for whose benefit the lands of the petitioners came to be acquired.

¶11

Mr.Jaybhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has brought to our notice that the lands were acquired some time in the year 1998 and thereafter section 4 notification came to be issued on 28.02.2002. It appears that thereafter the acquisition proceedings lapsed and accordingly another

¶12

{3}

¶13

notification u/s 4 came to be issued in September 2004. Thereafter, section 4 notification was again issued on 14.01.2008. The respondents have not paid compensation to the petitioners though their lands have been acquired some time in the year 1998.

¶14

It is indeed unfortunate that though the lands of the petitioners have been acquired yet no compensation is paid to the petitioners. We, therefore, allow this petition and direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioners in respect of the lands, if acquired for the purpose of construction of a percolation tank, within one year from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court. Respondents may take such steps as are available in law for paying the compensation to the petitioners. We make it clear that the petitioners would be entitled to be paid the compensation only if their lands have been acquired for the purpose of construction of percolation tank. The respondents to ascertain this fact and comply with the directions of this Court accordingly.

¶15

Rule is thus made absolute on the terms indicated above with no order as to costs.

¶16

[A.V.POTDAR, J.]

¶17

drp/wp599-09

Vinayak Kacharu Andhale and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinayak Kacharu Andhale 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

The State of Maharashtra Vs Pandurang S/O.Namdeo Wakale

The State of Mah. Vs Radhakisan Pandurang Bhagat

State of Mah Vs Tatu Malhari Sinde and 54 Ors.

Smt.Sonabai Late Haribhau Gaikwad. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others.

S M Solar Products Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner Employees Provident Fund

Manish Dattaraya Wadje and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.