Dismissed

Yosef Dhondiba Mohite and Ors. v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer No.Ii

Bombay HC13 Jun 2013WP/3289/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a 1974 land acquisition award. The court held the petition suffered gross delay as petitioners waited over two years to file it after discovering the award via RTI, stating that without specific averments of lack of knowledge, writ cannot be invoked.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition No. 3289 of 2013 is dismissed.

Yosef Dhondiba Mohite and Ors. Vs the Special Land… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

Ladda

¶2

1 55-wp-3289-13.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION No. 3289 of 2013.

¶5

Yosef Dhondiba Mohite and Ors

¶6

..Petitioners.

¶7

¶8

The Special Land Acquisition Officer No. II and Anr

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

Mr Uday Warunjikar for the Petitioners. Mr V.S.Gokhale, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶11

CORAM : A.S. OKA, & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 13^th June, 2013

¶12

P.C.

¶13

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶14

The challenge in this petition is to the Award dated 16^th September, 1974 made under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petition has been belatedly filed on 12^th February, 2013.

¶15

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relies upon the information obtained by the petitioners under the Right to Information Act. He has relied upon the reply received by some of the petitioners on 9^th March, 2011 under the Right to Information Act, in which it is recorded that the some of the petitioners were not served with the notices under sub section (2) of Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. He, therefore, submitted that the information discloses that there is no service of notice under section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. He, therefore, submitted that notwithstanding the fact that Award is of the year 1974, interference is necessary as the notice under section

¶16

1 / 2

¶17

2 55-wp-3289-13.doc

¶18

12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act has not been served to the persons interested in the acquired land.

¶19

We have perused the averments made in the petition. There is no specific averment in the petition that the petitioners or any of them were not aware about the declaration of Award which was made on 16^th September, 1974. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners have received the information under the Right to Information Act on 9^th March, 2011. The petitioners have waited for above two years and thereafter, filed the present petition. In any case, in the absence of specific averment that the petitioners were not aware of the impugned Award, the petition suffers from gross delay. In the circumstances, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be allowed to be invoked. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶20

2 / 2

Yosef Dhondiba Mohite and Ors. v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer No.Ii

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yosef Dhondiba Mohite and Ors. v. the Special Land Acquisition Officer No.Ii

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

Arun Vidyadhar Chougule Vs Sangli Miraj and Kupwad City Municipal Corporation, through Commissioner

M/S. Devi Construction Company, through Partner, Mr. Vinod K. Baney Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Shri. Ahmed Ibrahim Parwani Vs the Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Sopan Tukaram Kabadi and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Princpal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dpet and Ors.

Prakash Narayan Tingre and Ors. Vs Union of India, through the Ministry of Defence, through Advocate for the Union of India and Ors.

Prashant Narayan Phadtare Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer NO.22, Pune and Ors.