Dismissed
Pratik Prakashchand Karnawat v. the State of Mah and Ors.
Bombay HCWP/298/2011
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT…
What the court decided
AI extract
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
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.: 298 OF 2011
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.
Court’s or Judge’s orders.
WRIT PETITION NO.: 298 OF 2011
***
1.Heard Advocate Mr. Chaudhari for
petitioner/ plaintiff, learned A.G.P. Mr.
Ghute Patil for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2.Both Courts have refused interim relief
of temporary injunction to petitioner/
plaintiff. Attention is invited to judgment
of Division Bench of this Court in the case
of "Pratik S/o Prakashchand Karnavat and
another V/s State of Maharashtra and others"
reported in2007 (5) Mh.L.J. 720and
subsequent order of Division Bench dated 8th
July, 2009 to urge that land of which
possession is sought is not acquired and
hence temporary injunction ought to have been
granted. Contention is the relevant aspects
have not been looked into either by Appellate
Court or trial Court. Learned A.G.P. has
contended that the issue is already concluded
by Division Bench order dated 8th July, 2009.
2
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.: 298 OF 2011
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.
Court’s or Judge’s orders.
3.The scope of consideration, at this
stage, is very limited. I am not concluding
the controversy finally because civil suit as
filed is pending. After the reported
judgment (supra) dated 13th June, 2007
petitioner plaintiff again approached this
Court in writ petition No.4251 of 2009
challenging the award contending that the
land not included in award was sought to be
acquired without giving any opportunity to
him. He is claiming that land on the basis
of gift deed. The Division Bench in its
order dated 8th July, 2009, after considering
relevant records, found that his name was
till date not mutated and he had several
remedies available in law for claiming
compensation, and establishing his ownership
over the said land.
4.The said observations of the Division
Bench are binding, at least at this stage.
5.The land being acquired and taken in
3
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.: 298 OF 2011
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.
Court’s or Judge’s orders.
possession is for re-settlement of project
affected persons. There is no jurisdictional
error or perversity. Petition is rejected.
[B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.]
Dated:17/01/2011.
ans/298
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pratik S/o Prakashchand Karnavat and another V/s State of Maharashtra and othersReferred
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mentioned as petitioner/plaintiff
State of Maharashtra (implied respondents)
B.P. Dharwardhi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court