Dismissed

Shrishbai Malhari Sonkamble v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC21 Sept 2013WP/7302/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the disbursement of land acquisition compensation via writ petition, arguing violation of a temporary injunction. The Court noted the pending civil suit and significant regulatory delay, holding that the writ jurisdiction was not justiciable, leaving the petitioner with an alternative remedy.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue alternate remedy; no costs.

Shrishbai Malhari Sonkamble Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶2

Writ Petition No. 7302 of 2013

¶3

Shirishbai w/o. Malhari Sonkamble, Age : 61 years, Occupation : Agriculture & Household, R/o. Akkalkot Road, Behind Godown, Village Naldurg, Taluka : Tuljapur, District : Osmanabad.

¶4

.. Petitioner.

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Public Works and Irrigation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶7

The Collector, Osmanabad, Taluka & District : Osmanabad.

¶8

2A. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Osmanabad, Taluka & District : Osmanabad.

¶9

The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Osmanabad,

¶10

Taluka & District : Osmanabad.

¶11

Smt. Abedabee w/o. Imamsab Nadaf, Age : 55 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Hatthi Galli, Naldurg, Taluka : Tuljapur, District : Osmanabad. .. Respondents.

¶12

(2)

¶13

Mr. J.M. Murkute, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶14

Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos. 1 to 3.

¶15

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &

¶16

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.

¶17

DATE : 21ST SEPTEMBER 2013

¶18

COURT'S ORDER (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) :

¶19

Heard Adv. Mr. J.M. Murkute for the petitioner, and learned AGP Mr. K.M. Suryawanshi for respondent nos. 1 to 3.

¶20

Civil Suit filed by the petitioner, against his son, seeking injunction to restrain him from creating third party interest, is pending. In that Civil Suit, the petitioner has also secured temporary injunction. The petitioner contends that in violation of the injunction, his son transferred the property to respondent no.4. The property has thereafter been acquired by respondent nos.1 and 2. Compensation thereof is being paid and the petitioner has raised objection before Collector.

¶21

Adv. Mr. Murkute submits that the objection is still not decided and ignoring injunction and an invalid transfer, the Collector has disbursed amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to respondent no.4.

¶22

(3)

¶23

We find that the disbursement of Rs. 1,00,000/- is prior to 6th April 2013. Present petition has been filed on 7th May 2013. Matter has remained pending with the Registry of this Court, without any orders, for almost more than four months. In this situation, it is apparent that the petitioner can take recourse to alternate remedy and obtain appropriate orders therein. We are not inclined to interfere in writ jurisdiction.

¶24

Hence, with above liberty to the petitioner, the petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶25

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE ) ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶26

bgp/wp7302

Shrishbai Malhari Sonkamble v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrishbai Malhari Sonkamble v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prashant Gangadhar Mergewad Vs the State of Mah. and Ors.

Gram-Panchayat, Satala Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri Guru Ganesh Jain Shikshan Samiti and Another Vs Union of India and Others

Bhagwanrao Kalyanrao Panchal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Laxman Gyanba Alure Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sant Pundlik Shikshan Mandal Pratishthan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others