Dismissed

Shetkari Sangharsh Samitee and Anr. v. the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Feb 2012PIL/192/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a PIL and Writ Petition challenging land acquisition proceedings under the urgency clause. Since the State Government dropped the acquisition, the cause of action ceased to exist. The issue regarding Section 48 read was kept open.

What did the court decide?

The PIL, Writ Petition, and Civil Application were disposed of as the cause of action no longer survives following the withdrawal of land acquisition proceedings.

Shetkari Sangharsh Samitee and Anr. Vs the Additional… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

PIL192.07

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.192 OF 2007

¶4

WITH

¶5

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.46 OF 2008

¶6

¶7

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.192 OF 2007

¶8

WITH

¶9

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.55 OF 2008 In

¶10

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.192 OF 2007

¶11

WITH

¶12

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.137 OF 2011 In

¶13

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.192 OF 2007

¶14

Shetkari Sangharsh Samitee & Anr. V/s.

¶15

: Petitioners

¶16

The Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division & Ors. : Respondents

¶17

WITH

¶18

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.19 OF 2012

¶19

¶20

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.192 OF 2007

¶21

M/s.Maharashtra Energy Generation Ltd., a fully owned subsidiary of M/s. Reliance Energy Generation Ltd. : Applicant (Orig.Resp.no.4)

V/s.

1/6

PIL192.07

Shetkari Sangarsh Samitee & Ors. : Respondents (Orig.Petr.nos.1&2 & Resp.nos.1,2,3&5 respectively)

¶26

WITH

¶27

WRIT PETITION NO.8514 OF 2010

¶28

Vinayak Haribhau Patil & Ors. : Petitioners V/s. The Additional Commissioner, having his office at Konkan Division & Ors. : Respondents

¶29

Mr.S.S.Pakale for the petitioners in PIL No.192/2007 & C.A.Nos. 46/2008, 55/2008 & 137/2011.

¶30

Ms Gayatri Singh i/b. Ms Bhavana Mhatre for petitioners in W.P.No. 8514/2010.

¶31

Mr.J.J.Bhatt, Senior Advocate, with Ms Anjali Chandurkar and Mr.D.J.Kakaria i/b. Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt & Caroe for respondent no.4 in PIL No.192/2007 & C.A.Nos.46/2008, 55/2008 & 137/2011 and applicant in C.A.No.19/2012 as also resp.no.5 in W.P.No. 8514/2010.

¶32

Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, Addl. Govt. Pleader for resp./State.

¶33

CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ.

¶34

DATE : FEBRUARY 07, 2012.

¶35

P.C.:

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners in PIL No.192 of

¶37

2/6

¶38

PIL192.07

¶39

2007, C.A.Nos.46/2008, 55/2008 & 137/2011, C.A.No.19 of 2012 and Writ Petition No.8514 of 2010 and the learned counsel for the respective respondents.

¶40

The cause of action for filing these proceedings pertain to initiation of land acquisition proceedings by the respondent nos.1, 2, 3 & 5 by invoking the urgency clause under section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. The PIL and Writ Petition are pending for a long time and various orders came to be passed by this Court from time to time. However, one Kalpana Jagtap, Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Raigad-Alibag, filed an affidavit dated 11.1.2012 in Civil Application No. 46 of 2008 in PIL No.192 of 2007 and in paragraph 2 of the said affidavit, he Deputy Collector has stated thus:-

¶41

“I say that the PIL has been filed for a relief that the Government should be restrained from taking possession by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act. The Petition was heard from time to time. The State Government has reconsidered the entire issue and

¶42

3/6

¶43

PIL192.07

¶44

has decided to withdraw from acquisition and accordingly by invoking powers under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the State Government has dropped the acquisition process in respect of following pieces of land, a chart of which is as under:-”

¶45

The learned counsel for the petitioners in the PIL as well in the

¶46

Writ Petition have submitted that since the land acquisition proceedings initiated by invoking urgency clause under section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act have been dropped by the State Government, the grievance of the petitioners made in the PIL as well as in the Writ Petition no more survives. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners in PIL as well as in the Writ Petition have submitted that since the land acquisition proceedings are dropped by invoking the powers under section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, the issue pertaining to sub-section (2) of section 48 may kindly be kept open.

¶47

Civil Application No.19 of 2012 is filed by the original respondent

¶48

no.4 in PIL No.192 of 2007 whereby a direction is sought against the

¶49

4/6

¶50

PIL192.07

¶51

respondent nos.1 to 3 and 5 to refund the amounts deposited by the applicant with the respondent no.3. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the total amount of Rs.43.6 crores as well as Rs.44.9 lakhs has been deposited by the applicant with the respondent no.3 and since the land acquisition proceedings initiated by the State Government by invoking the urgency clause came to be withdrawn/lapsed, the State Government be directed to refund the said amount.

¶52

The learned Addl. Govt. Pleader appearing for the State Government has submitted that since the land acquisition proceedings are withdrawn, the State Government shall take appropriate decision, in accordance with law, insofar as the refund of amount to the respondent no. 4 in PIL No.192 of 2007 is concerned within a period of ten weeks from today.

¶53

On the back-drop of the above referred facts and circumstances, it is evident that the State Government has withdrawn the land acquisition proceedings initiated by invoking the urgency clause under section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act and, therefore, the cause of action in PIL as well as in the Writ Petition no more survives. Hence, the PIL and Writ

¶54

5/6

¶55

PIL192.07

¶56

Petition are hereby disposed of by keeping the issue pertaining to subsection (2) of section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act open. Civil Application No.19 of 2012 is also disposed of.

¶57

In view of the disposal of PIL No.192 of 2007, Civil Application

¶58

Nos.46 of 2008, 55 of 2008 & 137 of 2011 also stand disposed of.

¶59

(SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)

¶60

Suundaresan

¶61

6/6

Shetkari Sangharsh Samitee and Anr. v. the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shetkari Sangharsh Samitee and Anr. v. the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division 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

The Courts on Its Own Motion Vs Nagpur Municipal Corporation Thr. Its Commissioner and Anr.

Ashish Rameshlal Shah Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Vishwasrao Sukhdeo Deokar Vs State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Navnath Keshav Kapse Vs State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr. Santosh Sudhakarrao Kulkarni Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

manubhai p. vashi Vs state of maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Shail Rane and 2 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 9 Ors.

Nivrutti Dagdu Sonwane Vs the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

Shri. Sampat Ramchandra Ingale and Ors. Vs Shri. Kisahn Hariba Ingale and Ors.

Shri. Dallu Rama Bhogulkar Vs the Collector and Deputy Director for Rehabilitation Kolhapur and Ors.

Krishna Raghu Tamkar(Decd.)by Lrs. Shama Krishna Tamkar and Ors. Vs the Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.

Pravin Maniklal Pardeshi Vs the State of Maharashtra through District Election Commissioner, Pune and Ors.

Vinayak Haribhau Patil and Ors. Vs the Additional Commissioner and Ors.

Matrix Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.