Four connected writ petitions seeking directions to award enhanced compensation were filed. The Court held that the petitions were misconceived as alternative remedies were available and no interference under Article 226/227 was warranted. The petitions were disposed of.
No directions were issued; the writ petitions were disposed of.
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.
wp6561.12
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.6561 OF 2012
Murlidhar s/o Laxman Ghodke,
R/o-Village Pardari,
Tq. & Dist-Aurangabad.
...PETITIONER.
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Aurangabad,
and others.
...RESPONDENTS.
...
Shri.A.R. Borulkar Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri.S.V. Kurundkar, Government Pleader for
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri. Umakant Patil Advocate for Respondent
Nos. 3 and 4.
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6562 OF 2012
Vitthal s/o Laxman Ghodke,
R/o-Village Pardari,
Tq. & Dist-Aurangabad.
...PETITIONER.
VERSUS
wp6561.12
2
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Aurangabad,
and others.
...RESPONDENTS.
...
Shri.A.R. Borulkar Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri.S.V. Kurundkar, Government Pleader for
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri. Umakant Patil Advocate for Respondent
Nos. 3 and 4.
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6566 OF 2012
Eknath s/o Maruti Dinde,
R/o-Village Pardari,
Tq. & Dist-Aurangabad.
...PETITIONER.
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Aurangabad,
and others.
...RESPONDENTS.
...
Shri.A.R. Borulkar Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri.V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri. Umakant Patil Advocate for Respondent
Nos. 3 and 4.
...
WITH
wp6561.12
3
WRIT PETITION NO.6732 OF 2012
Sunderbai w/o Dhondiba Kakde,
R/o-Village Pardari,
Tq. & Dist-Aurangabad.
...PETITIONER.
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Collector, Aurangabad,
and others.
...RESPONDENTS.
...
Shri.A.R. Borulkar Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri.V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2.
Shri. Umakant Patil Advocate for Respondent
Nos. 3 and 4.
...
CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND
A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ.
DATE : 11TH OCTOBER, 2012.
PER COURT :
1.Heard learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties.
2.ThePetitioners'referencesfor
wp6561.12
4
enhancement of compensation are pending before the
Reference Court. The Petitioners' contention is
that connected matters were settled in Lok Adalat.
The Petitioners contend that on identical basis,
directions be issued to the Respondents, to award
same amount to the Petitioners.
3. The Petitions are misconceived. The
Petitioners have alternate remedies. In exercise
of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India, no interference is warranted. The Writ
Petitions are disposed of.
[A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.]
asb/OCT12
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Court should exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to issue directions for enhancement of compensation.
Murlidhar Ghodke
Vitthal Ghodke
Eknath Dinde
Sunderbai Kakde
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