Disposed

Satyawan Kishanrao Gokule and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC14 Nov 2014WP/1578/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad disposed of a writ petition concerning land acquisition payment. The court granted leave to amend pleadings and directed respondents to examine entitlement to interest on belated payments.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to file representation seeking interest on belated land acquisition payment; respondents directed to examine entitlement within statutory timelines.

Satyawan Kishanrao Gokule and Others Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

G.A.Ghule [P.A.]

¶2

1/2

¶3

wp 1578.14 (Sr.No.950).sxw

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

¶6

Writ Petition No.1578 Of 2014.

¶7

Satyawan s/o Kishanrao Gokule & Ors. :: Petitioners.

¶8

V e r s u s

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. :: Respondents.

¶10

Appearance =>

¶11

Mr. R.K. Ashtekar, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶12

Mrs. M.A. Deshpande, A.G.P. for the State of Maharashtra.

¶13

Mr. N.B. Khandare, Advocate for Respondent No.3.

¶14

CORAM : B.P. Dharmadhikari & A.M. Badar, JJ. DATE : 14^th November, 2014.

¶15

Per Court :-

¶16

Heard Mr. R.K. Ashtekar, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mrs. M.A. Deshpande, learned A.G.P. for the State of Maharashtra and Mr. N.B. Khandare, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3.

¶17

[2] Mr. Khandare, learned counsel makes a statement that payment in terms of Award passed U/Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 has been made. Mr. Ashtekar, learned counsel however, disputed this statement. He points out that as payment is made belatedly and interest @ Rs.15% per annum for belated period has not been made. He points out that, this court [ Coram : R.M. Borde and A.M. Badar, JJ.] has granted the petitioners leave to amend on 31^st August, 2014 but, inadvertently actual

¶18

2/2 wp 1578.14 (Sr.No.950).sxw

¶19

amendment could not be carried out. He seeks leave to incorporate that amendment. In the interest of justice, we grant leave to carry out the amendment.

¶20

[3] Mr. Khandare, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 as well as Mrs. M.A. Deshpande, learned A.G.P. for the State, state that as amended copy is not still served upon them, they are not in position to rebut the argument advanced by Mr. Ashtekar, learned counsel for the Petitioners. However, we find that payment in terms of Section 11 of “the Act” has been made after filing of present Writ Petition.

¶21

[4] In this situation, we grant leave to petitioners to file Representation pointing out their entitlement to interest. If such Representation is made to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 within a period of three weeks from today, concerned Respondents shall examine it in accordance with law within further period of six weeks. If any amount is found payable to any of the petitioners, as a result of such examination, that amount shall be paid to respective petitioners within further period of 12 weeks. Acceptance of such amount by the petitioners shall not preclude them from challenging the correctness of the exercise undertaken.

¶22

[5] With these directions and with liberty to the petitioners, we dispose of the Writ Petition. No costs.

¶23

(A.M. BADAR, J.) (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Satyawan Kishanrao Gokule and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyawan Kishanrao Gokule and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishanrao Shripatrao Hiwale and Ors. Vs State of Mah. and Ors.

Anil Umrao Gote Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bhagwan Bhanudas Bhojane Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sadashiv Waman Ware and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Gopal Petanna Gondge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohan Gopalrao Gondge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others