Partly allowed

Bhumiputra Shetkari Sevabhavi Sanstha and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Apr 2014PIL/256/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State government directed to decide on land acquisition objections under section 32 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 within six months, clarifying survey rights but stating no adjudication on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the State Government to take a decision under section 32(3) of the Act of 1961 within six months and consider all objections.

Bhumiputra Shetkari Sevabhavi Sanstha and Anr… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

PIL256.09

¶2

krs

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.256 OF 2009

¶6

Bhumiputra Shetkari Sevabhavi Sanstha & Anr. : Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. : Respondents

¶7

Mr.Uday P. Warunjikar for the Petitioners.

¶8

Mr.V.S.Gokhale, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for Respondent no.1.

¶9

Mr.P.P.Chavan with Ms S. Gadre i/b. M/s.Little & Co., for Respondent nos.2 and 3.

¶10

…. CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶11

DATE : APRIL 08, 2014.

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners; the learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the first Respondent; and the learned counsel appearing for the second and third Respondents.

¶14

We have perused the affidavit-in-reply filed by Mr.Ravindra J. Khebudkar on behalf of the second Respondent the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation. The said reply records that the Notification under sub-section (2) of section 32 of the Maharashtra

1 of 4

PIL256.09

krs

Industrial Development Act, 1961 (for short the “Act of 1961”) has been issued by the State Government on 10.12.2009 inviting objections from the land owners and other person or persons interested in the land in question. The learned counsel appearing for the second and third Respondents states that it is not within the knowledge of the second Respondent whether the State Government after considering the objections has passed the order under sub-section (3) of section 32 of the Act of 1961. The learned counsel appearing for the second and third Respondents also invited our attention to paragraph 3 of the said affidavit. His submission is that survey and measurement may be necessary to enable the State Government to take a decision under sub-section (3) of section 32.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that

¶20

objections to the notification under sub-section (2) of section 32 in the form of representation dated 25.09.2011 have been raised by the Petitioner. The learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader has no instruction on this aspect.

¶21

Considering the scheme of the Act of 1961, unless there is an

¶22

order passed by the State Government in accordance with sub-section (3)

2 of 4

PIL256.09

krs

of section 32, further steps for acquiring the land cannot be taken.

¶27

Therefore, as of today, it is not necessary to entertain the petition.

¶28

We, however, make it clear that if the State Government wants survey and measurement of the land to be carried out before taking any decision, the State Government will be entitled to do so. Carrying out survey and measurement will not affect the rights of owners and/or persons interested.

¶29

Subject to what is observed above, we pass the following order:

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

(i) We direct the State Government to take an appropriate decision in

¶32

accordance with sub-section (3) of section 32 of the Act of 1961 on the basis of the notification dated 10.12.2009 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months from today.

¶33

(ii)We make it clear that the State Government will have to consider all the objections including the objections contained in the representation dated 25.09.2011 filed by the Petitioners.

¶34

(iii) We make it clear that we have not made any adjudication on merits of the controversy and all contentions of the parties are expressly

PIL256.09

krs

kept open.

(iv) In the event the order passed under sub-section (3) of section 32 is adverse to the Petitioner, it is obvious that the Petitioner will be entitled to take out appropriate proceedings for challenging the same.

¶39

(A.S. OKA, J.)

¶40

(A.A. SAYED, J.)

¶41

4 of 4

Bhumiputra Shetkari Sevabhavi Sanstha and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhumiputra Shetkari Sevabhavi Sanstha and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Babanrao Hariharrao Deshmukh and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mrutyunjay Ashram, through President, Mr. Jayant Gopal Joshi Vs State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

All Maharashtra Human Rights Welfare Association Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Ravi Shankar Natesh Vs Reserve Bank of India, through Chief General Manager and Anr.

Shankar Ramchandra Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kshamanand P. Patil Vs Jayawantrao Gangaram Awale and Ors.

Devidas Mariappa Polke Vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Dept of Higher and Technical Edu. and Ors.

Suhas Kashinath Gurav Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Element Learning Centre Private Limited and Ors. Vs the Collector, Satara and Ors.

Shri. Kumar Gorakhnath Shinde Vs Smt. Aparna Atul Salagare and Ors.

Mrutyunjay Ashram, through President, Mr. Jayant Gopal Joshi Vs State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Shri. Ashok Pandurang Mayekar Vs the Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Shri Baburao Maruti Dalavi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shivaji Babaji Kamble and Ors. Vs the Deputy Director for Rehabilitation and Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.