Dismissed

Dr Bhikaji Jagannath Wagdhare v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited and 7 Ors.

Bombay HC24 Feb 2012WP/2131/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge Bench dismissed a writ petition challenging environmental clearance, directing the petitioner to approach the National Green Tribunal for substantive relief regarding land clearance. Pending interlocutory prayer on encroachment was left open for a separate substantive petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to file a substantive petition regarding property rights if violated.

Dr Bhikaji Jagannath Wagdhare Vs Nuclear Power Corporation… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2012)

-: 1 :-

wp - 2131/11

srp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2131 OF 2011

¶6

Bhikaji Jagannath Waghdhare. ..Petitioner. Versus Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited and others. ..Respondents.

¶7

S.S.Limaye for the petitioner. Lopa A. Munim i/b Rajesh Kothari & Co., for R-1. J.S.Saluja, AGP for R-4, 5 & 7. Sharmila Deshmukh for R-8. A.V.Pawarkar for R-6.

¶8

Coram : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & RANJIT MORE, J. Date : February 24, 2012 .

¶9

P. C. :

¶10

In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for various reliefs. As far as substantive reliefs (a) to (d) are concerned, they all challenge the clearance given by the Government of India in Ministry of Environment and Forest [for short “MoEF”] on 26^th November 2010 and the connected issues. We find considerable force in the submission made on behalf of respondent no.1 that all these reliefs can be prayed for before the National Green Tribunal, which is only seized of the matter in Appeal No. 16 of 2011. A copy of the

¶11

-: 2 :-

¶12

wp - 2131/11

¶13

notice issued by the National Green Tribunal for the hearing fixed on 28^th November 2011 is also produced at Exhibit-C to the Notice of Motion No. 606 of 2011 filed by respondent no. 1.

¶14

In view of the above, this writ petition cannot be entertained insofar as the petitioners have challenged the environmental clearance granted by MoEF of Government of India in favour of respondent no.1.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, vehemently submits that the petitioners are affected by the illegal action of the respondents in acquiring, encroaching upon the lands/ homestead / plantation on land bearing Hissa Nos. 19, 21, 22 and 23 in Survey No.119 of village Madban taluka Rajapur district Ratnagiri. It is submitted that since the above actions are being taken without following the procedure prescribed by law, the writ petition is maintainable insofar as the said prayer is concerned. It is submitted that though the prayer is couched as an interim prayer, the petitioner may be permitted to amend the petition and to pray for the same as substantive relief.

¶16

-: 3 :-

¶17

wp - 2131/11

¶18

Instead of granting permission to amend the petition, as requested, we leave it open to the petitioner to file substantive petition in case any property rights of the petitioner are violated by any encroachment over the land on which the petitioner claims ownership.

¶19

Subject to above liberty, the writ petition is

¶20

dismissed.

¶21

[CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶22

[RANJIT MORE, J.]

Dr Bhikaji Jagannath Wagdhare v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Bhikaji Jagannath Wagdhare v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bombay Environmetal Action Group Aand Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. and S.H. Developers Pvt.Ltd. - Applicants

Bengal Mill Stores Private Ltd. Vs Jayesh C. Doshi and 4 Ors.

Bombay Environmetal Action Group Aand Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. and M/S. v. M. Developers - Applicant

Meera W/O Sadanand Kamat Vs the State of Maharashtra and 16

Mohammed Iliyas Mangroo Sheikh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Tanuja Ajit Thatte Vs Ajit Ramchandra Thatte and Ors.