Disposed

Laxman Sahebrao Jadhav and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Aug 2012WP/352/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerns a claim for rental compensation under Government Policy and the Land Acquisition Act. The Court found doubts regarding the timeline of possession versus the Section 4 notification. It directed the petitioners to submit a fresh representation specifying the notification date and mandated the authorities to decide within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioners to move fresh representation mentioning the date of Section 4 notification; authorities to decide on rental compensation within three months.

Laxman Sahebrao Jadhav and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 W.P.352.11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 352 OF 2011

¶4

Laxman Sahebrao Jadhav
and another ...PETITIONER.

¶5

 VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra
and other ...RESPONDENTS.

¶7

 ...
 Shri N.L.Jadhav,Advocate for Petitioners.
 Shri V.B.Ghatge,AGP for Respondents No.1 and 2

¶8

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2799 OF 2011

¶9

Dinkar Sahebrao Jadhav
and another ...PETITIONER.

¶10

 VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
and other ...RESPONDENTS.

¶11

 ...
 Shri N.L.Jadhav,Advocate for Petitioners.
 Shri K.S.Patil,AGP for Respondents No.1 and 2

¶12

CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI AND SUNIL P.DESHMUKH,JJ.

¶13

 DATE : 09.08.2012.

¶14

2 W.P.352.11

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

. Prayer is to direct respondents to consider
the representation preferred by the petitioners
for grant of rental compensation in terms of
Government Policy.

¶17

2. Learned AGP points out that the date of
notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act, has not been disclosed.

¶18

3. Mr. Jadhav is seeking time to place that
date on record. He further states that the
possession has been taken on 15.03.1989 and award
under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act has
been made on 22.08.1991.

¶19

4. We find that the award has been made within
a period of two and half years from the date of
taking possession. Facts therefore create doubt
about the story being pressed into service, prima
facie. In other words, the possession may not have

¶20

3 W.P.352.11

¶21

been taken before the Section 4 notification. If

¶22

that be the case, the petitioners will not be
entitled to any rental compensation.

¶23

5. As the date of Section 4 notification is not
on record, we direct the petitioners to move fresh
representation accordingly, mentioning the date of
Section 4 notification. If such representation is

¶24

received by the competent authority and it finds
that the petitioners are eligible/entitled to said
rental compensation, appropriate decision on the
representation shall be taken within a period of
three months after its receipt.

¶25

6.The petitions are disposed of accordingly. No

¶26

costs.

¶27

MTK

¶28

4 W.P.352.11

Laxman Sahebrao Jadhav and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman Sahebrao Jadhav and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Shaha Masthan Bademiya Vs the Msrtc through Divisional Controller Aurangabad and Ors.

Pravin Shivram Kadam Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vetaleshwar Sahakari Doodh Utpadak Sanstha Marayadit and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Pramod Shriram Salunke Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shridatta Plastic Industries Thr Proprietor Vs the State of Maharashtra Andors

Neminath Maharaj Bahuuddeshiya Educational and Cultural Mandal Vs the State of Mah and Ors.