Allowed

Parasram Suryabhan Kakade v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Apr 2010WP/1653/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a certificate as a project affected person for land acquired for a village tank and the quashing of an administrative order rejecting his application. The High Court found prior precedent binding and allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Certification ordered; impugned order quashed; respondent directed to decide application afresh.

Parasram Suryabhan Kakade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1653 OF 2010

¶4

Parasram s/o Suryabhan Kakde, Age : 51 years, Occ. Agril., R/o Kumbhephal, Tq. Ashti, District Beed ..PETITIONER

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary, Revenue & Forests Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶7

The Collector, Beed, District Beed

¶8

The District Rehabilitation Officer, Beed, Dist. Beed ..RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr D.R. Jayabhar, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for the respondents.

¶10

CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ

¶11

DATE : 16th April, 2010

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ]

¶13

¶14

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

¶15

By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner prays for directing respondent no.3 to issue a certificate to the petitioner as a "project affected person" and also prays for quashing of the order dated 3.12.2009 passed by respondent no.3 rejecting the application of the petitioner.

¶16

The petitioner claims that his land came to be acquired for the purposes of construction of a village tank at KumbhephalGhatshil, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed. According to the petitioner, the acquisition of the land for the aforesaid village tank is a public purpose entitling the petitioner to be issued with a certificate as a project affected person.

¶17

Shri Jayabhar, learned Counsel for the petitioner has produced before us several orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court on this aspect of the matter. In the light of the aforesaid orders, therefore, according to us the impugned order is not sustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶18

¶19

We accordingly allow this petition, quash and set aside the impugned order and direct respondent no.3 to decide the application of the petitioner afresh, in accordance with law and in accordance with the judgments/orders passed by this Court. Liberty to the petitioner to produce the copies of the orders before respondent no.3.

¶20

Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no

¶21

order as to costs.

¶22

( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶23

amj/wp1653.10

Parasram Suryabhan Kakade v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parasram Suryabhan Kakade 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

Taterao Apparao Deshmukh Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Ranjana Arjun Pawar and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Eklavya Magas Seva Samittee Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

State of Maharashtra Vs Devidasrao Shankarrao Nemiwant

Hemantkumar Prakash Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Uttamrao Dhulbaraomaske and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.