This writ petition concerned compensation for premises under a town planning scheme in Shirdi. The State rejected the interim compensation proposal. The Court held that it would be appropriate for the authorities to take steps in accordance with law, and dismissed the petition without further order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp611.12
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.611 OF 2012
Dilip Namdeo Wani,
R/o-Shirdi, Tq-Rahata,
Dist-Ahmednagar,
and others.
...PETITIONERS.
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Law & Judiciary Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032,
and others.
...RESPONDENTS.
...
Shri.K.M. Nagarkar Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri.S.V. Kurundkar, Government Pleader for
Respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Shri.R.N. Dhorde, Senior Counsel for
Respondent No.2.
Shri.V.D. Hon Advocate for Respondent No.7.
...
CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND
A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ.
DATE : 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2012.
PER COURT :
1.Heard learned counsel for the respective
parties.
wp611.12
2
2.Learned counsel for the Petitioners
submits that the proposal has been submitted by
the Respondents in respect of adequate
compensation to the Petitioners, who are occupying
the premises under reservation Nos.34 and 39 of
the town planning scheme of Shirdi township.
3.Shri. Kurundkar, learned Government
Pleader has placed on record a copy of
communication dated 11th September, 2012,
informing that the State had, in principle,
rejected the proposal.
4.Shri Nagarkar, learned counsel for the
Petitioners submits that probably the authorities
must not have forwarded appropriate proposal and
that is why the State rejected the same. The
learned counsel submits that in case appropriate
proposal would have been forwarded, the State
would have considered the same.
wp611.12
3
5.Shri. Dhorde, learned senior counsel
appearing for Respondent No.2 submits that on
State's refusal of the proposal, the law will take
its own course and the Collector would take
appropriate steps in accordance with law.
6.Shri. Hon, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.7, submits that appropriate steps
would be taken by the Authorities concerned, in
accordance with law.
7.We have considered the submissions
advanced. In the light of the decision taken by
the State, the Respondent Authorities would take
steps in accordance with law. With these
observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
[A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.]
asb/SEPT12
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the State refusal of compensation proposal warrants judicial intervention.
What steps the State authorities must take following their decision to reject the proposal.
Dilip Namdeo Wani and others
The State of Maharashtra
NARESH H. PATIL
A.B. CHAUDHARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court