Disposed

Uday Manohar Gandhewar v. Municipal Council, Kinwat Thr Chief Officer and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Dec 2014WP/3953/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought compensation for land taken by Municipal Council. After the council returned possession due to financial inability to proceed, the Court declared the land reservation lapsed and disposed of the writ petition as infructuous. Contempt notice withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition declared infructuous and disposed; show cause notice in contempt matter withdrawn.

Uday Manohar Gandhewar Vs Municipal Council, Kinwat Thr… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

(1) W.P. No. 3953 of 2012

¶2

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

¶3

Writ Petition No. 3953 of 2012

¶4

Uday s/o. Manohar Gandhewar, Age : 44 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Kinwat, District : Nanded. .. Petitioner.

¶5

versus

¶6

Municipal Council, Kinwat, Through its Chief Officer.

¶7

The Assistant Director, Town Planning, Nanded.

¶8

State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai.

¶9

.. Respondents.

¶10

Mr. S.V. Natu, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. B.A. Darak, Advocate, for respondent no.1.

¶12

Mr. G.R. Ingole, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.2 and 3.

¶13

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.M. BADAR, JJ.

¶14

DATE : 15TH DECEMBER 2014

¶15

W.P. No. 3953 of 2012

¶16

COURT'S ORDER (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) :

¶17

Heard respective Counsel for the parties.

¶18

Petition was filed seeking compensation for land taken in possession by Municipal Council for public purpose. This Court, on 17th July 2013, issued certain directions and Municipal Council was called upon to deposit 50 % of the amount i.e. Rs. 67,90,000/-. The Municipal Council could not deposit that amount.

¶19

After considering its financial condition, the Municipal Council passed a resolution and resolved to hand over possession back to the petitioner. In terms of that resolution, the petitioner has received back the land.

¶20

Now, request of Adv. Natu, on behalf of the petitioner, is to declare that the reservation of land has lapsed. He points out that the planning authority itself has expressed its inability to acquire the land and to develop it.

¶21

The reservation is prescribed under the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966, and it can lapse in accordance with provisions thereof. Hence, with liberty to the petitioner to take such other steps as are open in law, we dispose of present Writ Petition as infructuous. No costs.

¶22

Adv. Mr. Darak on behalf of Municipal Council seeks withdrawal of notice to show cause in contempt matter. Adv. Natu, in

¶23

W.P. No. 3953 of 2012

¶24

view of subsequent developments, has no objection. Accordingly, said show cause notice is withdrawn.

¶25

( A.M. BADAR ) ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶26

puranik / WP3953.12

Uday Manohar Gandhewar v. Municipal Council, Kinwat Thr Chief Officer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uday Manohar Gandhewar v. Municipal Council, Kinwat Thr Chief Officer 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

Gopal Prabhakar Bhagwat Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors.

Krushnabai Gajendra Telang and Another Vs the Union of India and Others

The Executive Engineer Krishna Khore Vikas Mahamandal M.I., Osmanabad Vs Bhonaji Bajirao Palve and Others

Pradnya Mahendra Khillare and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nago Pundalik Ganar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ravindra Arjun Bagul Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others