Disposed

Shri. Bajirao Kundlik Vazarkar and Ors. v. the Collector, Pune and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Aug 2012WP/4924/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought direction under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 for determination of land compensation pending since 2000. The Court noted respondent counsel's objection to delay but directed respondents to verify acquisition facts before taking procedure, then disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

No specific relief granted; Court directed respondents to verify facts regarding acquisition and compensation before proceeding.

Shri. Bajirao Kundlik Vazarkar and Ors. Vs the Collector… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

WP-4924-12

¶2

skc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 4924 OF 2012

¶6

Bajirao Kundlik Vazarkar & Ors.

¶7

..Petitioners

¶8

versus

¶9

The Collector, Pune & Ors.

¶10

..Respondents

¶11

Mr. T. D. Deshmukh with Mr. Ritesh Kulkarni for Petitioners. Mrs. M. P. Thakur -Assistant Government Pleader for State.

¶12

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

¶13

07 August 2012

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State.

¶16

It is submitted that the land of the petitioners admeasuring 9 Hectors 57 Ares from Survey no. 289 situated at Village Mann, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune, was acquired by the respondents in the year 2000. However

¶17

till this date the compensation of the said land neither been determined nor

1/3

WP-4924-12

skc

paid to the petitioners. The petitioners therefore are seeking direction to the respondents to decide the compensation as per the procedure stipulated under Section 33 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961. It is contended that there was no agreement arrived at between the petitioners and the State Government as contemplated under sub section (2) of section 33 of the Act and therefore the only method open for the State Government for determination of amount of compensation is as per the procedure stipulated under sub section (3) of section 33 of the Act.

¶22

The learned Assistant Government Pleader has raised the preliminary objection about the delay and latches. It is contended that there is an inordinate delay caused in invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners since the land alleged to have been acquired was in the year 2000.

¶23

Be that as it may. The respondents to verify all the facts pertaining to acquisition proceedings and it is only on being satisfied that the land of the petitioners has been acquired and the compensation thereof has not been either determined or paid to the petitioners, in that event alone, it will be open for the respondents to undertake the appropriate procedure under sub section (3) of Section 33 of the Act, provided there is no other legal

2/3

WP-4924-12

skc

impediment in this regard.

¶28

With these observations, writ petition is disposed of.

¶29

(D. D. SINHA, J.)

¶30

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

¶31

Chandka

¶32

3/3

Shri. Bajirao Kundlik Vazarkar and Ors. v. the Collector, Pune and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Bajirao Kundlik Vazarkar and Ors. v. the Collector, Pune 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

Rev.Bathuel Ramchandra Tiwade Vs Rev.Dn.Albert Dattaoba Lonadhe and Ors.

Sonu Services, through Proprietor, Ashpak Gundumiya Agasapure Vs the Executive Engineer, Msedcl, O and M Division and Ors.

Jai Laxmi Construction Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. Vs M/S. Benson Wire Industry

Shripati Krishna Mane and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Revenue and Ors.

Abdul Mujib S/O Abdul Alim Gaffur Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.