The Writ Petitioner challenged the rejection of his application under section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, claiming violation of section 16 despite allotment to affected persons. The High Court found that mutation entries established possession transfer and rejection was lawful.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
wp11676.13
krs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE
WRIT PETITION NO.11676 OF 2013
Mallikarjun Virsangappa Gadwe : Petitioner V/s.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. : Respondents
Mr.B.G.Vaidya for the Petitioner.
Mr.S.N.Patil, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the Respondents.
….. CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ.
DATE : APRIL 16, 2014.
P.C.:
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner.
passed by the Divisional Commissioner (Resettlement), Pune Division, on an application under sub-section (1) of section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short the “Act of 1894”). The application has been rejected on the ground that the possession of the acquired land was taken over from the Petitioner and that it has already been allotted to projected affected persons.
1 of 3
wp11676.13
krs
Petitioner is that there was a direction issued by this Court directing the Divisional Commissioner to consider the case of the Petitioner on merits. He urged that the Petitioner was never dispossessed in accordance with section 16 of the Act of 1894 and, therefore, application under sub-section (1) of section 48 could not have been rejected. He urged that a prayer was also made under section 14 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 and even the said prayer by which another land was offered by the Petitioner has not been considered on merits.
2 of 3
wp11676.13
krs
physical possession of the land. As the possession of the acquired land was taken over, on an application made under sub-section (1) of section 48, the Commissioner had the power to consider the prayer for cancellation of acquisition or deletion of the Petitioner's land from acquisition. In view of allotment of land to project affected persons, even the prayer for exchange could not have been considered.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Commissioner erred in rejecting the petition for cancellation of acquisition given that possession of the land was taken over by the government.
Whether the prayer for exchange under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 required consideration when land was allotted to project affected persons.
Whether the mutation entries recorded in 2000 and 2002 validate the discontinuation of the petitioner's possession for the purpose of the writ petition.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Mallikarjun Virsangappa Gadwe
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
A.S. OKA
A.A. SAYED
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
