The petitioners challenged land acquisition by MIDC without compensation from 1964. The court held that due to unexplained laches and unavailability of papers, no relief could be granted under Article 226. The petition was rejected.
None. Petition rejected.
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 Wp 9513.09
Kambli
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.9513 OF 2009
Shri Tukaram Kana Joshi and ors. ...Petitioners v/s. M.I.D.C. & Anr. ...Respondents
Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, Sr.Advocate i/b V.S.Kapse for the Petitioners.
Mr.G.S.Hegde with Mr.L.M.Lokesh i/b Bhole & Co. for Respondents Nos. 1 & 2.
Mr.Hemant Prabhulkar i/b Juris Consulta for Respondent No. 4.
Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP for Respondent No.6.
CORAM: D.K.Deshmukh & Anoop V. Mohta, JJ DATED: 14th November, 2011
P.C.:
their land was taken by MIDC in the year 1964. It is also the
case of the Petitioners that they were not paid any compensation from 1964. The Petitioners are not in a position to point out that they had made any attempt or made
any grievance for getting compensation of the land.
2 Wp 9513.09
(ANOOP V.MOHTA, J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether relief can be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution where the petitioner is guilty of unexplained laches and papers are unavailable.
Whether the delay in raising the grievance regarding non-payment of compensation from 1964 bars the petition.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Tukaram Kana Joshi and Ors.
M.I.D.C. and Anr.
D.K. Deshmukh
Anoop V. Mohta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
