Allowed

Vishnupant Ambadas Mane v. the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Feb 2014WP/3033/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court converted a writ petition into an application for rental compensation payment, directing the Collector to decide it expeditiously within three months under the 2007 award and Section 24 of the 2013 Act.

What did the court decide?

Treat the petition as an application for payment of rental compensation; direct the Collector to decide it expeditiously within three months.

Vishnupant Ambadas Mane Vs the State of Maharshtra and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

{1}

¶2

3033.11 wp.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3033 OF 2011

¶4

 Vishnipant Ambadas Mane

¶5

Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Maharashtra and others.

¶8

Respondent/s

¶9

Mr. Vivekanand Ingale,advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. K.G. Patil, Additional GP for the Respondent Nos.
1 to 3

¶10

Mr. Shirish G. Sangle, Advocate for respondent No.4.

¶11

CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI &
 RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ.
 DATE : 20TH FEBRUARY, 2014.

¶12

PER COURT:

¶13

1]Having heard the learned Advocate for the
petitioner and Mr. Patil for the respondents at some
length, we are of the opinion that the interest of
justice would be served, if the petition presented to
this Court alongwith its annexures is treated as an
application for payment of rental compensation and the
same is decided by the Collector, Osmanabad. That be
considered as a request to grant rental compensation
in terms of the prayers in this petition.

¶14

2]Let that exercise be done as expeditiously
as possible and preferably within 3 months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this Court. By our

¶15

3033.11 wp.odt

¶16

direction, we do not mean that the rental compensation
has to be awarded. However, the Collector shall,
without being influenced by the repeal of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 and in terms of clause (b) of
Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act,2013, take an appropriate decision
in terms of award which has been made in 2007.

¶17

[RAVINDRA V. GHUGE][S.C. DHARMADHIKARI]
 JUDGEJUDGE.

¶18

grt/-

Vishnupant Ambadas Mane v. the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnupant Ambadas Mane v. the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

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

Ashifkhan Daulatkhan Pathan Vs Vijay Namdeo Lahane and Ors.

Shaikh Aslam Shaikh Ramzan and Anr. Vs Vijay Namdeo Lahane and Ors.

The State of Mah and Ors. Vs Ansuyabai Baburao Patil and Ors.

Shivswayambhu Realtors Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

M/S Lokmanya Enterprises through Partner Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Deelip Madhavrao Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.