Disposed

Surekha W/O Ishwarchandra Chopkar v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mumbai and 5 Others

Bombay HC26 Sept 2014WP/1075/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment addresses the writ petition where the petitioner claimed a share in compensation as a joint owner. The Court held that such disputes belong to the domain of the civil court under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and disposed of the writ petition accordingly while directing the continuation of the bank account sealing order pending civil court orders.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to file proceedings under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The order sealing the bank account was continued for three months.

Surekha W/O Ishwarchandra Chopkar Vs State of Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

WP1075-14

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1075/2014

¶5

(SUREKHA ISHWARCHANDRA CHOPKAR VERSUS STATE OF MAH. & ORS)

¶6

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Court's or Judge's orders

¶9

¶10

Shri K.S. Motwani, counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.M. Ukey, Additional G.P. for the R-1 to 4. Shri A.R. Patil, counsel for the R-5 & 6.

¶11

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND P.R. BORA, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 26, 2014.

¶12

Heard.

¶13

The issue involved in this case cannot be decided in exercise of the writ jurisdiction as the petitioner is claiming a share in the compensation that is paid to the respondent nos.5 and 6 on the ground that the petitioner is one of the joint owners of the property and her name is also recorded in the 7/12 extract.

¶14

Shri Patil, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.5 and 6, disputes the aforesaid position.

¶15

Be that as it may, the said dispute can only be decided by a civil Court in a reference under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶16

Shri Ukey, the learned Additional Government Pleader, states that the bank account of the respondent nos.5 and 6 is sealed as it is most likely that the respondent nos.5 and 6 would withdraw the entire amount thereby leaving nothing to the petitioner if the claim of the petitioner is found to be correct.

¶17

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶18

WP1075-14

¶19

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the proceedings would be filed within a period of one month.

¶21

If that be so, we direct the State Government to continue the order of sealing the bank account of the respondent nos.5 and 6 till the interim orders are passed by the Civil Court. The order sealing the bank account of the respondent nos.5 and 6 would be in operation for a period of three months.

¶22

Order accordingly. No costs.

¶23

JUDGE JUDGE

¶24

APTE

Surekha W/O Ishwarchandra Chopkar v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mumbai and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surekha W/O Ishwarchandra Chopkar v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mumbai and 5 Others

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

Vyankatesh Gulabrao Deshmukh Vs Additional Commissioner,Amravati Division and 2 Ors.

Smt. Nanda Wd/O Shivkumar Manchalwar Vs Shiv Vidya Shikshan Prasarak Shikshan Sanstha, through Its President, Nagpur and 3 Others

Sanskar Shikshan Mandal, through Its President, Shri Sharad Atmaram Kathwate Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary and 2 Others

Sandip S/O Ramkrishna Nandapure Vs State of Maharashtra, through Minister, Co-Operation, Mumbai and Others

Baburaon Ajabrao Deshmukh, and Another Vs the Collector, Buldana, and 5 Others

Smt. Kumudini Vishwanath Athalye Vs Shri. Shyam Wardhane, the Municipal Commissioner, Nagpur