Allowed

Osmanabad Muncipal Council Osmanabad v. Dilip Sopanrao Ghodke and Anr.

Bombay HC15 Jun 2010CA/163/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench allowed appeals against the disposal of a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act without hearing the acquiring body. The court remanded references to the lower court, adding the appellant as a respondent to ensure proper determination of compensation.

What did the court decide?

Reference and judgment set aside; references remanded to reference court; appellant added as respondent No.2.

Osmanabad Muncipal Council Osmanabad Vs Dilip Sopanrao… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

Civil Application Nos. 163 of 2000, 164 of 2000 and 165 of 2000 in First Appeal Stamp No. 24280 of 1999 AND

¶4

Civil Application No. 185 of 2000 with First Appeal No.1199 of 2003 AND

¶5

Civil Application No. 170 of 2000 with First Appeal No.1592 of 2008 AND Civil Application No. 182 of 2000 with First Appeal No. 1195 of 2003

¶6

Mr. R.V. Naiknavare, Advocate the applicant / appellant Mr. S.N. Kendre, AGP for the respondent / State

¶7

CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 15th June, 2010

¶8

PER COURT :

¶9

All these appeals can be decided by this common Judgment and order.

¶10

Civil Application is moved by the acquiring body mainly the Osmanabad Municipal Council. The land in question was acquired by the State of Maharashtra. The respondent No.2, the party who was affected by the land acquisition, preferred a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, they did not add the appellant, the acquiring body as party to the reference. The State of Maharashtra alone opposed the reference and the reference was disposed of without hearing the appellant. The appellant thus filed the first appeal with this application seeking condonation of delay in filing of the first appeal etc. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay is condoned and the appeal is taken up for final hearing.

¶11

In view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of

¶12

Abdul Rasak and others v. Kerala Water Authority and others

¶13

¶14

(AIR 2002 S,C. 817) , it would be proper if the references are remanded back to the lower Court adding the appellant as one of the respondents. This would enable the appellant to lead their evidence for the purpose of determining the compensation. The appeals are therefore allowed. The Judgment and Award are set aside. The references are remanded back to the reference Court. The appellant is added as respondent No.2. The reference Court shall decide the reference afresh. All Civil Applications as well as the appeals are disposed of accordingly.

¶15

(A.V. NIRGUDE, J.)

¶16

srm/ca/163/2000

Osmanabad Muncipal Council Osmanabad v. Dilip Sopanrao Ghodke and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Osmanabad Muncipal Council Osmanabad v. Dilip Sopanrao Ghodke and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Divisional Controller Maha State Road Transport Vs Sumitra Prakash Nivade and Ors.

Govind Nivruti Shitole. Vs Pandit Limbaji Shitole and Others.

Shivaji Nagorao Bahirwad Vs Anita Shivaji Bahirwad

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mangal Shamgir Gosavi and Ors.

Janabai Haribhau Darekar and Ors. Vs Bhaginath Syaji Darekar and Ors.

Dinesh Asaram Bagul and Ors. Vs the Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Aurangabad and Ors.