Disposed

Hari Chandru Patil and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Resettlement and Ors.

Bombay HC8 May 2012WP/2990/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition challenging the allotment of rehabilitation lands, the High Court of Bombay Civil Appeals held that the specific issue of land allocation between different project beneficiary zones could not be decided at that stage. The court directed the respondents to decide the Petitioners' representation regarding the allotment within six weeks after a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Representations filed by Petitioners shall be decided within six weeks after their appearance; Respondents directed not to change allotment until a reasoned order is passed.

Hari Chandru Patil and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, through… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

Dixit

¶2

WP-2990-12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2990 OF 2012

¶5

Hari Chandru Patil & Ors. … Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra, Thru' Department of Resettlement, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai & Ors. … Respondents

¶6

Mr. P.M. Pradhan, i/b. Mr. D.V. Sutar, for the Petitioners.

¶7

Mr. V.S. Gokhale, A.G.P., for the RespondentState.

¶8

CORAM : S.A. BOBDE &

¶9

MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 8 TH MAY, 2012.

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent.

¶13

The only grievance of Mr. Pradhan, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, is that the Respondents are allotting lands meant for persons who are entitled to be in the beneficiary zone of the Warna Project to the persons who are in the beneficiary zone of the Dudhganga and Tulsi Project.

¶14

We find at this stage that the question as to which specific land is meant for persons in the Warna Project and which specific land is meant for persons in the Dudhganga Project cannot be properly decided in these proceedings.

1/2

Dixit

WP-2990-12

In the circumstances, Mr. Gokhale, the learned A.G.P. for the Respondent State, states that, in exceptional cases, the Government is empowered to make such allotment. However, even the question whether this case involves exceptional circumstances cannot be properly decided in this case.

¶19

In the circumstances, we direct that the Petitioners' representation dated 17^th February, 2012, which is at Exhibit “I” to the Petition, and any additional representation, which the Petitioners may make, shall be decided within a period of six weeks from the date the Petitioners appear before the Respondents.

¶20

The Petitioners are directed to appear before the Respondents on 21^st May, 2012.

¶21

The Respondents shall not change the allotment of the lands until the Petitioners are heard and a reasoned order is passed thereon.

¶22

The Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule discharged.

¶23

[MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.] [S.A. BOBDE, J.]

¶24

2/2

Hari Chandru Patil and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Resettlement and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Chandru Patil and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Resettlement and 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

D.v.Pandit Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sardar Tabish S/O. Mukhtar Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Subhash Ambadas Mahatkar Vs Kalyan Dombivili Municipal Corporation, through Municipal Commissioner and Ors.

Shamrao Krishna Bhosale (Since Decd) through Legal Heirs Smt. Bhagirathibai Shamrao Bhosale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sarfuddin Abubakar Ismail Contractor Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anil G. Shah Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.