Dismissed

Babaso Dadu Nargachche v. Deputy Collector and Anr.

Bombay HC29 Nov 2013WP/5800/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging a notice under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 calling for a reply. The High Court found that no formal acquisition proceedings under Section 48 had been initiated. The petition was dismissed without interfering with the statutory notice.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of; all contentions on merits are kept open. No interim application filed or reply mandated immediately.

Babaso Dadu Nargachche Vs Deputy Collector and Anr. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

wp-5800.13

¶3

ash

¶4

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5800 OF 2013

¶6

Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court’s Court’s or orders or directions & Judge’s orders. Registrar’s orders.

¶7

Shri Vijay Killedar for the Petitioner. Shri V.S. Gokhale, AGP for the Respondent State.

¶8

CORAM : A.S. OKA & S.C. GUPTE, JJ DATE : 29TH NOVEMBER 2013

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

. Heard learned counsel appearing for the

¶11

Petitioner and the learned AGP for the Respondents.

¶12

The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner on instructions states that in fact there is no application under Sub-section (1) of Section 48 of

¶13

the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 filed by the Petitioner. As of today, there is no acquisition proceedings initiated to the knowledge of the Petitioner.

¶14

¶15

wp-5800.13

¶16

ash

¶17

By the impugned notice dated 20^th March 2013, the Petitioner has been informed that there is a proposal to acquire land bearing Gat No.366 admeasuring 81 Ares. The Petitioner has been called upon to file a reply.

¶18

At this stage, no interference is called for. If the Petitioner has not filed any reply to the impugned notice, he can always do so within a period of four weeks from today.

¶19

Subject to what is observed above, the Petition is disposed of.

¶20

All contentions of the Petitioner on merits are

¶21

kept open.

Babaso Dadu Nargachche v. Deputy Collector and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babaso Dadu Nargachche v. Deputy Collector 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

Sunil Eknath Kole and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Shri. Gurubaksh Singh Uppal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Alka Avinash Salunke Vs Avinash Hanmant Salunke

Mr. Dharma Saju Rathod and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt. Ratna Shantaram Gangurde Vs the Commissioner of Revenue Department, Nashik and Ors.

Tukaram S. Kamble (Since Decd) through Lrs Vs the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.