Disposed

Bhau Gnyanba Vidhate v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC22 Apr 2014WP/2486/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition sought directions to release 11 ares of land from acquisition. The court directed the Railway Department to submit a proposal for de-notifying 11 ares, allowing the petitioner to receive compensation for the 16 ares already acquired.

What did the court decide?

Directions to Railway to resubmit proposal for releasing 11 ares; Petitioner allowed compensation withdrawal for 16 ares.

Bhau Gnyanba Vidhate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp248613.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2486 OF 2013

¶5

Bhau s/o Gnyanba Vidhate

¶6

Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & others

¶9

Respondents

¶10

Mr.N.K.Tungar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.G.Patil, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1, 2 & 4. Mr.D.V.Soman, advocate for Respondent No.3.

¶11

CORAM : R.M.BORDE &

¶12

A.M.BADAR, JJ. DATE :22nd April, 2014

¶13

PER COURT:

¶14

1 The petitioner is praying for issuance of directions to the Respondents to release 11 ares’ land out of S.No.213, situated at village Kada, Tq. Ashti, District Beed, from acquisition proceedings and release amount of compensation for acquired land to the extent of 16 ares land.

¶15

2 An affidavit-in-reply has been presented on behalf of Respondent No.2-Land Acquisition Officer wherein it has been stated that the proposal needs to be forwarded by Railway Department i.e. acquiring body for de-notifying petitioner’s land to

¶16

{2}

¶17

wp248613.odt

¶18

the extent of 11 ares’ and in the absence of such proposal, no further steps can be taken.

¶19

3 An affidavit-in-reply has also been presented on behalf of Respondent No.3-Railway Department i.e. acquiring body wherein it has been stated that the Railways need an area to the extent of 16 ares for the purpose of development and does not require remaining 11 ares land. It is also contended that due to arithmetical mistake committed during joint measurement, excess land of the petitioner is shown to have been acquired, however, the Railways require only 16 ares land belonging to the petitioner.

¶20

4 In the facts and circumstances of this case, this petition can be disposed of by issuing directions to Respondent No. 3-Railways to resubmit the proposal with Respondent No.2-Land Acquisition Officer for releasing remaining 11 ares land from acquisition. Respondent-Railway Department shall tender necessary proposal within a period of four weeks from today to the Respondent No.2 – Land Acquisition Officer. Respondent No.2, on receipt of the proposal, shall transmit the same to the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad, for taking appropriate decision in the matter, within a period of four weeks from its receipt. Respondent No.4-the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad shall take appropriate decision in the matter in respect of releasing the land from acquisition, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a

¶21

wp248613.odt

¶22

period of six weeks from the date of receipt of proposal from the Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioner shall be entitled to withdraw the amount of compensation in respect of 16 ares’ acquired land.

¶23

5 With the directions as aforesaid, writ petition stands

disposed of.

A.M. BADAR

R.M.BORDE

JUDGE JUDGE

adb/wp248613

Bhau Gnyanba Vidhate v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhau Gnyanba Vidhate 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

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shrikishan Purushottam Khandagale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Eknath Gangaram Sabale and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ashok Bhimrao Waghunde and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhaunudas Naba Jadhav and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Babu Hari Waghmare and Others Vs District Collector, Jalna and Another

Chintaman Abaji Jaybhay and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another