Disposed

Shaikh Usman Shaikh Raheman Shah v. the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Mar 2012WP/800/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioners sought injunction against dispossession by a Corporation for road widening. Upon finding possession was already taken, the court directed the Corporation to examine documents and pay compensation according to the State Government's ready reckoner within four weeks, preserving rights for higher compensation.

What did the court decide?

Order rule made absolute directing respondents to examine documents and pay compensation as per State ready reckoner within four weeks.

Shaikh Usman Shaikh Raheman Shah Vs the State of Maharshtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 800 OF 2012 “Shaikh Usman Shaikh Raheman Shah Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others” with WRIT PETITION NO. 805 OF 2012 “Abdul Karim Khan Abdul Raheman Khan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others”

¶4

WITH

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 808 OF 2012 “Kamlakar Panditrao MungikarVs. The State of Maharashtra and others”

¶6

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders

¶7

¶8

Mr. Deodatta P. Palodkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP/ Mr. V.D. Godbharle, AGP for respondent No.1

¶9

Mr. A.M. Karad, Advocate / Mr. N.B. Khandare, Advocate/ Mr. Ukamakt Patil, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

¶10

CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI & SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ.

¶11

DATE :- 14TH MARCH, 2012.

¶12

PER COURT :-

¶13

1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, taken up for final hearing.

¶14

. The petitioners had approached this court apprehending action on the part of the respondent Corporation in dispossessing them by taking possession of the property, for widening of the road. However, during the pendency of the petition, the possession of the petitioners' property has already been taken and part of the properties have been demolished for

¶15

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶17

¶18

WITH

¶19

WRIT PETITION NO. 808 OF 2012 “Kamlakar Panditrao MungikarVs. The State of Maharashtra and others”

¶20

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders

¶21

¶22

the purpose of widening of the road.

¶23

2] By now, it is settled position of law that right to property though no more is considered as fundamental right, it is recognized as a constitutional right. A reference in this respect can be placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of “Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Darius Shapur, Chennai and others” reported in (2005)7 SCC 627 , and in the matter of “ B.P.C.L. Ltd. Vs. Maddula Ratnavali “ reported in (2007)6 SCC 81.

¶24

3] It is, therefore, incumbent on any authority, for taking possession of the citizen's property, to follow the procedure as prescribed by law. However, since now possession has already been taken, the question that remains is, regarding payment of compensation to the petitioners.

¶25

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶27

¶28

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 808 OF 2012 “Kamlakar Panditrao MungikarVs. The State of Maharashtra and others”

¶29

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders

¶30

¶31

4] No doubt, that the respondent Corporation will now have to follow the procedure as prescribed by law for determining compensation payable to the petitioners, however, on an affidavit it is stated that the petitioners would be paid the compensation, as per the rates stated in the ready reckoner published by the State Government, within a period of 4 weeks from today, after examining the documents, regarding entitlement of the petitioners. In that view of the matter, we find that the interest of justice would be served by passing the following order :-

¶32

[i] The petitioners shall submit the documents to the respondent corporation, regarding their entitlement within one week from today.

¶33

[ii] On receipt of the said documents, the respondent Corporation shall examine the same and if it is found that the petitioners are entitled for compensation, the same shall be paid to the petitioners as per the ready reckoner published by the

¶34

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶35

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶36

WRIT PETITION NO. 800 OF 2012

¶37

“Shaikh Usman Shaikh Raheman Shah Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others” with WRIT PETITION NO. 805 OF 2012 “Abdul Karim Khan Abdul Raheman Khan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others” WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 808 OF 2012 “Kamlakar Panditrao MungikarVs. The State of Maharashtra and others”

¶38

Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders

¶39

¶40

State Government, within 4 weeks from today.

¶41

[iii] The payment so made to the petitioners would be without prejudice to their rights for claiming higher compensation, in accordance with law.

¶42

Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms. Parties to act upon authenticated copy of the order.

¶43

[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH,J.]

¶44

[B.R. GAVAI, J.]

¶45

grt/-

Shaikh Usman Shaikh Raheman Shah v. the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Usman Shaikh Raheman Shah v. the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hanumant Achyut Jadhav Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Nilkantha Parappa Bhandare Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sampatrao Bhanaji More and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Pratap Deva Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

M/S Mahaveer Traders Nanded Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prabha Farms Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.