Allowed

Durgadas Jeevanrao Jahagirdar. v. the State of Mah. and Others.

Bombay HC17 Jan 2014FA/230/1997

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant challenged compensation awarded for a plot used as a parking area rather than a municipal park. After hearing, the appellant requested withdrawal of the appeal citing encroachment and frustrated acquisition purpose. The court allowed the withdrawal.

What did the court decide?

First appeal allowed to be withdrawn. No costs. Necessary court fee to be refunded.

Durgadas Jeevanrao Jahagirdar. Vs the State of Mah. and… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

fa230.97

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO. 230 OF 1997

¶5

Durgadas Jivanrao Jahagirdar ...Appellant

¶6

versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶8

Mr. P.G. Godhamgaonkar, advocate for the appellant Mrs. M.S. Patni, A.G.P. for the respondent

¶9

CORAM : K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 17^th JANUARY, 2014

¶10

P. C. :-

¶11

Heard Mr. Godhamgaonkar. The first appeal was heard and

¶12

reserved for orders. Appellant present. At the request of Mr. Godhamgaonkar taken on board.

¶13

The appellant has questioned the compensation awarded in respect of open plot belonging to him for the purposes of municipal park and play ground. The grievance is, the very purpose of acquisition is frustrated, as the said place is used either for parking of government vehicles, ambulance and/or permitting private vehicles on charges.

¶14

Mr. Godhamgaonkar additionally says, there is rampant

¶15

fa230.97

¶16

-2-

¶17

encroachment on the property. It has deliberately side stepped by the Municipal Corporation to protect the interest of political heavy weights.

¶18

Mr. Godhamgaonkar has also placed reliance to the judgment in the matter of Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and Anr vs. Brijesh Reddy and another - 2013 (2) Mh.L.J. 880 , thereby the Supreme Court observed, the civil court is devoid of jurisdiction to give declaration or to grant injunction on the invalidity of procedure contemplated under Land Acquisition Act. In para 13, it is observed, "the only right available for the aggrieved person is to approach the High Court under Article 226 or the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India."

¶19

At the end, he says, since the purpose for acquisition has been brazenly frustrated and representation is moved by the appellant-land owner with acquiring body and the Municipal Corporation, on advise, he desires to withdraw the first appeal.

¶20

First appeal is allowed to be withdrawn and disposed of. No costs. Necessary court fee be refunded.

¶21

(K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.)

¶22

rlj/

¶23

fa230.97

¶24

-3-

Durgadas Jeevanrao Jahagirdar. v. the State of Mah. and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durgadas Jeevanrao Jahagirdar. v. the State of Mah. and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harishchandra Eknath Adekar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Mrs Suvidha Sheshrao and Anr. Vs Divisional Controller Jalgaon and Ors.

Dy.Regional Director E.S.I.Corpn. Nagpur Vs Janardhan Kisan Endayit

M I D C Latur Vs Vithal Babarao Muttepwar and Ors.

Abhinav Shikshan Sanstha Talegaon Ghat Tanda through President and Ors. Vs Shriram Ramdas Jadhav and Others

M.S.R.T.C.,Nanded Vs Mohammedi Begum @ Batul