Disposed

Suman Dattu Bhange and Othres v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC29 Sept 2014WP/2535/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by landowners alleging their properties in village Rui Pimpala fall within the submergence zone of an irrigation project, claiming entitlement to rehabilitation. Court directed parties to approach the Collector/District Rehabilitation Officer for an inquiry and disposed of the petition in the meantime.

What did the court decide?

Directive to applicants to approach the Collector/District Rehabilitation Officer within six weeks; inquiry to be conducted within four months; writ petition disposed of.

Suman Dattu Bhange and Othres Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp2535.14

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2535 OF 2014

¶5

SUMAN DATTU BHANGE AND OTHRES VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶6

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Kishor Dashrath Khade AGP for Respondents 1 to 4: Mr. V.D. Godbharle Advocate for Respondent No.5 : Mr. B.R. Survase

¶7

CORAM : R. M. BORDE AND V. K. JADHAV, JJ.

¶8

DATED : 29^th SEPTEMBER, 2014

¶9

P.C. :-

¶10

The petitioners claim that their landed properties are affected since those are located within submergence zone of Urdhwa Kundlika Medium Project, District Beed. The petitioners claim that they are residents of village Rui Pimpla and in order to demonstrate this fact they have placed on record the property tax extracts issued by Gram Panchayat of the said village. The petitioners claim that village Rui Pimpala comes within submergence zone of the project and since the petitioners are affected by the irrigation project, they are entitled to be rehabilitated in accordance with the policy prescribed by the State Government.

¶11

The claim of the petitioners is resisted by respondent Nos. 2 to

¶12

wp2535.14 -2-

¶13

4 as well as acquiring body by presenting affidavit in reply. It is stated in the affidavit in reply that Gaothan of village Pimpala Rui does not come within the submergence of project and the petitioners are residents of Gaothan of aforesaid village and therefore, they are not entitled to claim benefits of rehabilitation. The names of the petitioners do not appear in the list of project affected persons prepared by the authorities. The acquiring body has also adopted similar stand.

¶14

The petitioners placed reliance on the report tendered by the Tahsildar, Wadwani dated 26.8.2014 which supports the claim of the petitioners. So far as the documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioners to demonstrate that they are project affected persons belonging to village Rui Pimpala, Tq. Wadwani, District Beed, it is submitted by the respondents that the property tax extracts and other evidence has been fabricated by the concerned village Officer. The disputed facts stated by the respondents need further enquiry.

¶15

In the facts and circumstances of this case and considering the conflicting stand adopted by both petitioners and respondents, we deem it appropriate to direct the petitioners to tender appropriate representation/application together with all necessary details and supporting documentary evidence to the Collector and District

¶16

wp2535.14

¶17

Rehabilitation Officer. If the petitioners tender representation/ application alongwith necessary supporting documents to the Collector and District Rehabilitation Officer within a period of six weeks from today, the Collector/District Rehabilitation Officer shall take appropriate steps and cause inquiry to be made as regards contentions of the petitioners and after extending opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as acquiring body, shall take appropriate decision, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of such representation/application. With the directions as above, writ petition is disposed of.

¶18

The petitioners undertake to co-operate in the matter of construction of project and undertake not to cause any obstruction in the development work.

¶19

rlj/

Suman Dattu Bhange and Othres v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman Dattu Bhange and Othres 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

Asma Parveen Sk.Iqbal Vs Shaikh Iqbal Shaikh Ismail Parkar

The State of Maharashtra and Another Vs Satish Dhondiba @ Dhondiram Malshette and Others

Maharashtra State Industrial Development Corporation Latur Vs Harishchandra Vaijanath Chatekar and Others

Bharat Prabhakar Sabde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shrikant Prakashrao Mungal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Asmita Infra Developers Vs the Sugar Commissioner, Maharashtra State , Pune and Ors.