Partly allowed

Suryabhan Asraji Dhumal v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Apr 2010WP/2795/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court addressed a writ petition regarding the acquisition of petitioner's land for a village tank. The petitioner sought a Project Affected Person certificate. The Court dismissed the prayer for issuing a fresh certificate but directed the concerned authority to decide the pending application within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Application to respondent No.3 to decide the petitioner's application dated 29.12.2009 within four weeks; writ petition dismissed on that aspect.

Suryabhan Asraji Dhumal 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.2795 OF 2010

¶4

Suryabhan s/o Asraji Dhumal, Age 50 years, Occu.Agril., R/o Kasari, Taluka Ashti, District Beed

¶5

.. PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

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

¶8

The Collector, Beed, District Beed

¶9

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

¶10

Mr.D.R.Jayabhar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.S.K.Kadam, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondents 1 to 3

¶11

CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND

¶12

S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ

¶13

DATE : 26^th April, 2010

¶14

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J.)

¶15

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission.

¶16

¶17

It is the case of the petitioner that his land has been acquired for the purpose of construction of village tank and in the year 2006 the possession was also delivered.

¶18

It is the further contention of the petitioner that on or about 29.12.2009 he had filed an application for issuance of a certificate of being a project affected person. According to the petitioner the said application has not yet been decided.

¶19

The petitioner in the present petition has claimed a relief that the respondent No.3 be directed to issue the necessary certificate in favour of the petitioner and also that his application dated 29.12.2009 be decided by the respondent No.3.

¶20

In view of the fact that the application of the petitioner is pending consideration with the respondent No.3, we are not inclined to grant relief in terms of prayer clause (C) to the petition and dismiss the writ petition to that extent. However, we direct the respondent No.3 to decide the application submitted by the petitioner on 29.12.2009 for issuance of a certificate as a project affected person, in accordance with law, on its own merits, within a period of four weeks from today and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner.

¶21

¶22

Rule is made absolute in above terms with no orders as to

¶23

costs.

¶24

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

¶25

(vvr/2795.10wp)

Suryabhan Asraji Dhumal v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suryabhan Asraji Dhumal 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dattatraya Dnyaneshwar Zende Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Renuka Magasvarigya Education Society Aurangabad Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Renuka Magasvargiya Education So Lalwadi Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Yogesh Uttamrao Sathe and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sheshrao Khiraji Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dashrath Raghunath Yalkatwad Vs the State of Mah and Ors.