Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Indirabai Narayan Biwalkar and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Oct 2012CAW/2426/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This case is a Civil Appeal against an order where the State sought to expunge observations made against an officer. The court rejected the application, holding that the official should have been held accountable for delays in pending land acquisition applications. The court also noted that imposing costs felt like a light punishment compared to departmental action mandated by a circular.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected; costs of 10,000/- ordered against the official pending departmental action; complaint forwarded to the Chief Secretary.

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs Indirabai Narayan… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

CAW.2426.2011.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2426 OF 2011 IN CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9194 OF 2007

¶4

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. :- Applicants. Versus Indirabai Narayan Biwalkar & Ors. :- Respondents

¶5

Mr. C. R. Sonawane, AGP, for the Applicants.

¶6

CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR & P.D.KODE,JJ.

¶7

DATED:- OCTOBER 20, 2012

¶8

P.C. :-

¶9

We are intrigued to notice that the Application has been filed by the State for expunging the observations made against the officer and not by the officer in person. Further, for the reasons mentioned in Paragraph 3 of the order dated 23^rd January, 2008, no other order could have been passed but to make the concerned official accountable for the lapses in not only keeping the applications U/Sec. 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act pending for unduly long time but also not responding to the

¶10

Page 1 of 2

¶11

J.V.Salunke,PA

¶12

CAW.2426.2011.doc

¶13

communication sent by the Government Pleader pursuant to order passed by the Court to explain the position. Hence, the Application is rejected.

¶14

In our opinion, imposition of costs of `10,000/- on such official is a very light punishment. In fact, such officials should be dealt with departmentally in terms of Government Circular dated 16^th February, 2012. Inspite of that Circular, similar grievance of not deciding the applications U/Sec. 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act for unduly long time is made before this Court in large number of matters.

¶15

Copy of this order be forwarded to the Chief Secretary, for information and necessary action.

¶16

(P.D.KODE,J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.)

¶17

Page 2 of 2

¶18

J.V.Salunke,PA

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Indirabai Narayan Biwalkar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Indirabai Narayan Biwalkar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suboth S. Shah. Vs Mumbai Municipal Coporation and Anr.

Mrs. Alpana Deepak Mali, through Power of Attorney Holder, Deepak Rajaram Mali Vs Union of India, through Ministry of Petroleum, New Delhi and Ors.

Vishwas Arjunrao Barbole and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dagu Murlidhar Gamane and Anr. Vs Assistant Director, Town Planning Authority and Ors.

Farida N. Khory Vs Air India Ltd. and Anr.

Savaliram Ananda Kunde and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.