Review petition dismissed as no reason exists to review the order concluding that Survey No. 161/2 was not the subject matter of acquisition.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION NO. 119 of 2010
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 5984 of 1998
Mr. Narsingrao Krushnaji Shelke Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & ors.
....Petitioner
....Respondents
Mr. S.P. Thorat for the petitioner. Mr. V.S. Gokhale-AGP for respondents 1(a)-1(d)
CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ (IN CHAMBER)
DATED:- JUNE 7, 2010
P.C.
Heard Counsel for the parties.
“It is unnecessary to burden this Judgment with the apprehension of the Petitioners in relation to Survey No. 161/2 which in our opinion is misplaced as the said land is not the subject matter of acquisition.”
2
“Relevant part of para no.1:-
Since the year 1991, I am working as Special Land Acquisition Officer No. 13 at Pune. Acquisition proceedings in respect of acquisition of land of block no. 550 of mauje Pargaon started in the year 1970.
Relevant part of para no.5:-
As per my knowledge Govt. has decided to acquire southern side land of gat no. 550. It is true that Govt. had acquired two hectors 2 are land southern side land of gat no. 550 and further proceedings there carried out pertaining to that land. It is true that except the above mentioned land of gat no. 550 Govt. has not started acquisition proceedings about remaining land of that gat number.”
Petitioner is the topography of land bearing Survey No. 550/1 and 161/2. The argument clearly overlooks that the suit as originally filed by the Petitioner was for declaration and injunction in respect of Award passed in relation to Gat No.
3
550/2 admeasuring 2H 2R. No other land was subject matter of the said proceedings. The fact remains that the Petitioner is not in a position to produce any notification either under Section 4, 6 or 9 to substantiate the argument that even Survey No. 161/2 was subject matter of acquisition. As has been observed by us in the order under Review, the said land was not subject matter of acquisition.
(R.M.SAVANT, J)
(A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)
Narsingrao Krushnaji Shelke
State of Maharashtra
AM KHANWILKAR
RM SAVANT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
