Disposed

Digambar Utareshwar Barkul and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Feb 2014PIL/29/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition seeking quashing of administrative sanction for the Upla Storage Tank construction. Clarifying that policy decisions regarding dam feasibility are beyond judicial review, the court held no apprehension of unauthorized dispossession exists if the Land Acquisition Act or relevant rehabilitation laws followed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed off; security amount, if deposited, be refunded.

Digambar Utareshwar Barkul and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

WP/1240/2011 & ORS

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1240 OF 2011

¶5

SHIVLING NIVRUTTI SHETE VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAH AND ORS

¶7

Advocate for Petitioner : Shri V.D.Salunke AGP for Respondent 1 : Shri V.D.Godbharale Advocate for Respondents 2 to 5 : Shri S,G.Sangle Advocate for Respondents 9 to 22 : Shri R.D.Raut Advocate for Respondents 23 to 31 : Shri P.R.Patil h/f Shri V.D.Deshmukh

¶8

WITH

¶9

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 29 OF 2012 WITH

¶10

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 79 OF 2013

¶11

DIGAMBAR UTARESHWAR BARKUL AND ANR VERSUS

¶12

THE STATE OF MAH AND ORS

¶13

Advocate for Petitioners : Shri V.D.Saluke AGP for Respondents 1, 6 to 8 : Shri Sujit G.Karlekar Advocate for Respondents 2 to 5 : Shri Umakant Patil

¶14

CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ. Dated: February 12, 2014

¶15

PER COURT :-

¶16

By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking quashing of an administrative sanction granted to the Upla Storage Tank on Terna river by Government Resolution dated 16.8.2001. Alternately, they are seeking Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or direction, directing the respondents to take appropriate steps as per the

¶17

WP/1240/2011 & ORS

¶18

¶19

provisions of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 in order to rehabilitate such affected persons as could be displaced by the construction of dam or project styled as "Upla Storage Tank".

¶20

We are of the opinion that in the light of the ad-interim order passed by this Court the only apprehension that the petitioners can possibly entertain is displacement or dispossession from their lands without following the due process of law.

¶21

We cannot, in the garb of entertaining the Writ Petition, question the wisdom of policy adopted by the State or any scheme promulgated. Such measures or steps are essentially the policy decisions taken by the executive after evaluating all factors. It is not a matter where this Court can interfere with the decision of experts as to the location, need or feasibility of any project and particularly a dam. For these reasons, we cannot grant any relief in the Writ Petition, in so far as prayer clause (B) is concerned.

¶22

However, as far as alternate prayer is concerned, we clarify that in the light of the affidavit filed in reply, there is no apprehension that the petitioners would be displaced or dispossessed from their lands without the mandate of requisite law being followed. In the event, the acquisition is by resorting to Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or the current enactment in the field, then the mandate of the same has to be followed and unless that is not followed, there is no question of petitioners being dispossessed. Equally, if any rehabilitation measures are to be taken and implemented, in view of the

¶23

WP/1240/2011 & ORS

¶24

¶25

provisions of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 that would be taken as clarified in the affidavit-in-reply.

¶26

For all these reasons, there is no apprehension of the petitioners being dispossessed unauthorizedly or without adherence to the rule of law, the Writ Petition does not survive and accordingly disposed off.

¶27

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Public Interest Litigations also stand disposed of.

¶28

Security amount, if any deposited, be refunded to the petitioners.

¶29

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ( S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. )

¶30

akl

Digambar Utareshwar Barkul and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Digambar Utareshwar Barkul and Anr. v. the State of Mah 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

Kamlakar Ramrao Sonwane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad Thr Its Registrar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Zafar Ali Khan Mehmood Ali Khan Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ms. Pushpa Chavan and Anr. Vs Mahanagar Gas Ltd. and Ors.

Shri. Ravindra Duttaram Waikar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajendra Dashrathrao Datey Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Madhukar Dadmodharrao Sawant Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Milind Yashwantrao Dabhade and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Chinmayee Rajendra Ahirrao and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Avinash Prakash Mujage Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kamlakar Ramrao Sonwane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sudhakar Govind Bankar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bharat Uttam Raut Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Anil Tejrao Vargane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others