The petitioners, whose land was acquired in 1960, sought additional relief under later project rehabilitation legislations. The Court held that since compensation was already paid at the time, the subsequent Acts could not benefit them.
Petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
294wp617.09.sxw 1 .
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.617 OF 2009 (Motilal s/o. Govinda Wasnik and anr. vs. The Collector, Bhandara)
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Coram : D.D.Sinha & A. P. Bhangale, JJ. Date : 29/04/2009.
Heard Mr. Ashwin Ingole, Adv. for petitioners.
In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the land of
petitioner was acquired for Ordinance factory in the year 1960. It is also not in dispute that, as per the policy which was prevalent at the relevant time, compensation was already paid to the petitioner at the relevant time. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that subsequent legislations such as the Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976, the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986 as well as the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 cannot further the case of petitioner in this regard. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
JUDGE J UDGE
jais
1 issue framed by the court
Whether subsequent legislations regarding project displaced persons can provide further relief when compensation was already paid for land acquired in 1960.
Motilal s/o. Govinda Wasnik and anr.
The Collector, Bhandara
D.D. Sinha
A. P. Bhangale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
