Dismissed

Ramchandra Janardhan Deshmukh and Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Jun 2009WP/7997/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged land acquisition notification seeking re-allotment under Section 39 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act as land was allegedly not utilized. The court dismissed the petition, finding the land vested with the MIDC and noting the petitioners' repeated delays. The prerogative writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed finding no merit as the land vested with the MIDC for the purpose it was acquired.

Ramchandra Janardhan Deshmukh and Ors. Vs Special Land… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.7997 OF 2007

¶5

Shri Ramchandra Janardhan Deshmukh and Ors.

¶6

.. Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors.

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Mr.S.R.Agarkar i/b Mr.J.M.Patil for the petitioners

¶11

Mr.V.A.Sonpal, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 4

¶12

Mr.A.A.Garge for respondent nos.3

¶13

CORAM: J.N. PATEL & Smt.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

¶14

DATE: JUNE 8, 2009

¶15

P.C.

¶16

This petition is filed against the notification dated 13.06.64 in respect of acquisition of the land bearing survey no. 146/1, 146/2, 147/1 and 147/2 admeasuring about 99081 sq.meters situated at Village Airoli, Taluka and District Thane.

¶17

It is contended by the petitioners that the respondent State has acquired the said lands for the public purpose i.e. for the purpose of industrial development. However, the said lands are not utilised for the purpose for which it were acquired, therefore, the petitioners are entitled for re-allotment of the said lands as per the provisions of section 39 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act and G.R.

¶18

¶19

Dated 10.01.73. The respondent State has filed its affidavit challenging the petition on the ground that the award has been passed and the land holders have accepted the compensation and so also enhanced compensation was also awarded and accepted by the petitioners at the additional market value. It is further submitted by the learned A.G.P. that the said land is already handed over to M.I.D.C. on 23.04.1985 for the purpose of development.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks an adjournment. However, this petition is pending since 2007 for admission and the previous orders disclose that time and again the learned counsel for the petitioners has been seeking adjournments. By order dated 6.4.09, it was made clear that as a last chance, the matter was adjourned to 15.4.09 for hearing and thereafter, the matter is appearing on board today.

¶21

Considering this position, we are not inclined to adjourn this matter and so also from the fact stated above, it is clear that the land vest with the M.I.D.C. for the purpose for which it was acquired for. Thus, nothing remains in the matter. We do not find any merit in the matter. Hence, petition is dismissed.

¶22

(J.N. Patel, J.)

¶23

(Smt. Mridula Bhatkar, J.)

Ramchandra Janardhan Deshmukh and Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramchandra Janardhan Deshmukh and Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer 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

Kiran Sampatrao Patil and Ors. Vs Central Council of India Medicines and Ors.

The Indian Express Ltd. and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Telco (Kapoor) Co-Op. Hsg.Society Vs Pimpri Chinchwad New Town Development Authority and Ors.

Bhairavnath Baburao Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs Bharat Baburao Dhavan and Ors.

Arjunrao Mahadaba Ambure (Deceased) through 1 Shri Subhadra Arhunrao Ambure and Ors. Vs the Municipal Coporation of City of Solapur Throug Commissioner and Ors.

Sachin Ramchandra Chavan Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.