Disposed

Dr. Mr. Brijkishor Madanmohan Gupta and Anr. v. the State of Mah. Thr. Public and Works Dept. and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Aug 2012WP/962/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Nagpur Bench, dismissed a writ petition challenging a road construction. The Court held that since the dispute involved disputed questions of facts and required investigation, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not the appropriate remedy, directing the parties to the competent Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed of; the petitioners are directed to approach the competent Civil Court.

Dr. Mr. Brijkishor Madanmohan Gupta and Anr. Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1/3

¶2

0108lwp962.12.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 962 OF 2012

¶5

(Dr. Brijkishor M. Gupta & another Vs. The State of Maharashtra & others)

¶6

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

¶7

¶8

Mr. A. D. Gharote, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms T. Khan, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶9

CORAM : S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & M. T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 01 AUGUST, 2012

¶10

The petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that the respondents have constructed a road illegally on a portion of their land.

¶11

That, the construction is made by taking forcible possession and without acquiring the land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or otherwise and paying requisite compensation in terms of money.

¶12

What the respondents have stated on affidavit is that none of these facts are true

¶13

because the bridge across Nag River has been constructed and it approaches Kapsi-Dhargaon

¶14

2/3

¶15

0108lwp962.12.odt

¶16

Road as per the sanction and order of the State Government for the benefit of the public, particularly the villagers and farmers in the surrounding areas. The said construction and approach road is an activity which has been carried out on the Government land existing between the villages Dhargaon, Kapsi and Pawangaon. The construction is done on an existing cart track which was used by the local public for communication and transportation for several decades. That construction was commenced in the month of August, 2009 and has since been completed.

¶17

In our view, the very nature of the dispute would require a investigation into the facts. None of the statements made in the Writ Petition are admitted, but rather controverted by relying upon the official record and the maps. In these circumstances, a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a remedy for the petitioners. The petitioners ought to

¶18

3/3

¶19

0108lwp962.12.odt

¶20

approach the competent Civil Court and seek appropriate declaration, in accordance with law.

¶21

The Writ Petition is, therefore, disposed of as it involves disputed question of facts. No order as to costs.

¶22

We clarify that we have not dealt with the rival contentions of the parties.

¶23

JUDGE JUDGE

¶24

wwl

Dr. Mr. Brijkishor Madanmohan Gupta and Anr. v. the State of Mah. Thr. Public and Works Dept. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Mr. Brijkishor Madanmohan Gupta and Anr. v. the State of Mah. Thr. Public and Works Dept. and Anr.

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

National Education Society, through Its President Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of Education and Sports and 3 Others

Prakash Damodar Ruyarkar and 2 Ors. Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Dy. Secty/Municipal Secty. and Ors.

Ravindrakumar S/O Harikisanji Sarda Vs Sub-Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Amravati and Another

Tara Marotrao Chilwalwar (Sau. Tara K Parlewar) Vs Shriram Swami Shikshan Sanstha Thr. Its Secty. and 3 Ors.

Madhukar Nagorao Mendhe Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Secty. and Ors.

Smt. Pushpa Ramshiromani Dwivedi and 2 Ors. Vs Keshav Balkrishna Kapshikar and 2 Ors.