Dismissed

Narayan Gurulingappa Ghevare and Anr. v. the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Dec 2011WP/7163/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of four writ petitions concerning pending claims for rental compensation or benefits under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. Upon the Collector's assurance to decide applications within four months, the court discharged summons and directed authorities to decide cases and pay amounts within six months.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed. Direction to decide applications within four months and pay awarded amounts within six months.

Narayan Gurulingappa Ghevare and Anr. Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

WP 7163/11 & three others

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.7163/2011 Narayan Gurulingappa Ghevare & another V/s The State & others. WITH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.6326/2011 Govind Nivruti Bhusnar through GPA V/s The State & others. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6383/2011 Rangnath Ashraji Ubale & others V/s The State & another. WITH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.7024/2011 Sainath Baburao Gore & another V/s The State & others.

¶8

¶9

Shri N.P. Bangar, Advocate for petitioners in WPs 7163/11, 6383/11 & 7024/11.

¶10

Shri D.A. Bide, Advocate for petitioner in WP 6326/11. Shri S.V. Kurundkar, Govt.Pleader for respondent nos.1 & 2.

¶11

CORAM: B.R. GAVAI &

¶12

M.T. JOSHI, JJ.

¶13

Date: 14.12.2011

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the

¶15

respective parties.

¶16

The Court was required to issue summons to the Collector, Beed, vide order dated 30.11.2011 noticing that though a specific order was passed on 19.10.2011 to

¶17

WP 7163/11 & three others

¶18

¶19

the effect that if the reply is not filed by the next date, the Collector, Beed, was directed to personally remain present in this Court, neither the Collector had remained present nor any reply was filed.

¶20

The Court had also noticed that in various matters pertaining to Beed District, the officers in the Collectorate Beed were neither responding to the notices issued by this Court nor to the communications addressed by the office of the Government Pleader.

¶21

The officers of the State are bound to assist the Court in the administration of justice. Unless effective assistance is rendered by the officers, the Courts cannot exercise their sovereign duties of imparting justice to the citizens.

¶22

We could have taken serious view of the matter taking into consideration the occurrence in several matters, but we are not inclined to do so since Shri Shivanand Trimbak Taksale, who is presently holding

¶23

WP 7163/11 & three others

¶24

¶25

the charge as District Collector, Beed, has tendered his unconditional apology and has assured the Court that hereinafter such mistakes will not be repeated and that the subordinate officers in the District Collectorate would attend the Court matters diligently.

¶26

The apology tendered by the Collector is accepted and the summons are discharged.

¶27

The limited grievance raised in the petitions is that though the petitioners have made representations either for grant of benefit u/s 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act or for rental compensation, the same have not been decided by the respondent authorities.

¶28

In the affidavit of even date, the incharge Collector has given assurance that the applications filed by the present petitioners either for rental compensation or u/s 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act will be decided in any case within a period of four

¶29

WP 7163/11 & three others

¶30

¶31

months from today.

¶32

In that view of the matter, the grievance of the petitioners no more survives. The petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondent - authorities to decide the applications filed by the present petitioners within a period of four months from today in accordance with Government resolutions dated 1.12.1972 and 2.4.1979 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhagwat N. Patil V/s State of Maharashtra & others reported in 2009 (3) Mh.L.J., 413 . It is further directed that in case the petitioners are held entitled to any amount either towards benefit u/s 28-A or rental compensation, the said amount shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of six months from the date of decision.

¶33

(M.T. Joshi, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) Dt/- 14.12.2011 ndk/c14121153

Narayan Gurulingappa Ghevare and Anr. v. the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan Gurulingappa Ghevare and Anr. v. the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sachin Vishwanathappa Holkunde and Ors. Vs M/S Pawan Trading Co. and Ors.

Ahmed Khuram Daanish Md. Waseem Ahmed Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Santosh Bhikaji Satpute Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Maruti Ukandi Ingole Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Jaidi Faisal Faraj Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Rahul Narayan Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharshtra and Ors.