Allowed

Machinath Hiru Kadam and Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer

Bombay HC10 Mar 2011WP/1800/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment allows writ petitions challenging the refusal to transfer Land Acquisition References. It orders that all pending references involving adjacent lands under the same notification be heard together by a single Presiding Officer to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed; Rule made absolute directing allotment of all specified LARs to one Presiding Officer for joint trial.

Machinath Hiru Kadam and Ors. Vs Special Land Acquisition… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

wp1800.1822.1851.11.sxw

¶3

ast

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1800 OF 2011

¶6

Shri Machinath Hiru Kadam & ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer. ..Respondent.

¶7

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1822 OF 2011

¶8

Shri Krishna Hari Kadam & ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer. ..Respondent.

¶9

WITH

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO.1851 OF 2011

¶11

Smt Nirabai Lakhu Kadam & ors. ..Petitioners. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer. ..Respondent.

¶12

Mr. S.A.Rajeshirke, advocate for the Petitioners in all petitions.

¶13

Smt. Aparna Vhatkar, AGP for respondent in all petitions.

¶14

CORAM : B.R.GAVAI, J. DATE : MARCH 10, 2011.

¶15

P.C.

¶16

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.

¶17

¶18

wp1800.1822.1851.11.sxw

¶19

2 By way of present petition, Petitioner challenges the impugned order dated 18th August, 2010, vide which the Principal District Judge, Raigad Alibag had rejected the application for transferring the Land Acquisition References filed by them from the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel to the Court of Joint Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Panvel.

¶20

3 Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the land acquisition reference Nos. 4/2001, 9/2001 and 13/2001 are pending before the learned Civil Judge, S.D. Panvel. It is submitted that the lands of the applicants in the said references and the lands of the Petitioners are acquired under the same notification and further that the lands acquired under the said references are adjacent to the lands of the Petitioners.

¶21

4 In that view of the matter, I find that in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, it will be in the interest of justice that all these references are heard and decided by the same Presiding Officer. The evidence that would be required to be produced in all these matters is common evidence and as such, if all the matters are heard and decided together, the same would also save precious judicial time. In that view of the matter, Petitions deserves to be allowed.

¶22

¶23

wp1800.1822.1851.11.sxw

¶24

5 Learned Principal District Judge, Raigad Alibag is directed to allot all these matters i.e. LAR Nos.4 of 2001, 9 of 2001 and 13 of 2001 alongwith LAR No.8 of 2001, 10 of 2001 and 7 of 2001 to one Presiding Officer, so that they can be tried and decided together.

¶25

6 In that view of the matter, Rule is made absolute.

¶26

[ B.R.GAVAI, J ]

Machinath Hiru Kadam and Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Machinath Hiru Kadam and Ors. v. Special Land Acquisition Officer

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

Dhondiram Zunga Shinde and Ors. Vs Dhuninath Kachru Shinde and Ors.

Balwant Vitthal Shedge Vs Samabai Dadu Kamble and Anr.

Tatyasaheb Shantgonda Patil and Ors. Vs Rupwati Bhujgonda Patil and Ors.

Amarjit Singh Chandhok Vs Jolly Brothers Private Limited Company and Ors.

Rajeshwari Vedvyash Pai Vs Vijaykumar Baldev Mitra

Satish Vallabh Katekar and Ors. Vs Hari Ramchandra Paricharak and Ors.