Disposed

Shri. Nana Hari Kharjul (Deceased) through Leag Heirs and Ors. v. Nashim Muncipal Corporation and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Jun 2014WP/4578/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, in a writ petition, directed the Nashik Municipal Corporation to expedite land acquisition proceedings initiated on 24.03.2005, ensuring a final Award and completion within one year.

What did the court decide?

Completion of land acquisition and passing of final Award within one year from July 14, 2014.

Shri. Nana Hari Kharjul (Deceased) through Leag Heirs and… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

wp4578

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.4578 OF 2010

¶6

Nana Hari Kharjul (deceased)
through legal heirs & Ors. ...Petitioners
vs.
Nashik Municipal Corporation
and others...Respondents

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Mr.S.D.Shinde for the Petitioners
Ms Chaitrali Deshmukh for the respondent No.1
Ms M.P.Thakur, AGP for respondent Nos.2 and 3

¶9

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 A.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ.

¶10

 DATE : JUNE 23,2014

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,
the learned counsel for the first respondent and
the learned AGP for the second and third
respondents. By order dated 5th May 2014, this Court
directed final disposal of this petition at
admission stage.

¶13

2Under the agreement executed on 7th June 2003,
the petitioners handed over the possession of the
land described in paragraph 1 of the said agreement
to the first respondent. The first respondent-
Corporation is the Planning Authority within the
meaning of the Maharashtra Regional and Town
Planning Act,1966 (for short `MRTP Act'). In the
agreement, it is provided that the land subject
matter of the agreement is affected by 45 meter wide

¶14

2 wp4578

¶15

service road under the sanctioned development plan
for the city of Nashik. Advance compensation at the
rate of Rs.730/- per sq meter was paid to the
petitioners which was accepted by them under
protest. The agreement records that within a period
of six months, a proposal for acquisition shall be
submitted by the first respondent-Corporation to the
Collector. The agreement records that the possession
of the land was taken over on 29th January 2003. The
grievance made in this petition is that
notwithstanding the assurances incorporated in the
said agreement, no action was taken by the first
respondent-Corporation for acquisition of the said
lands.

¶16

3There is a reply filed by Shri Bhaskar
Uddhavrao More, Estate Manager of the Nashik
Municipal Corporation. In paragraph 3 of the reply,
it is stated that the petitioners are the owners of
the lands which are subject matter of this petition.
The fact that the agreement as aforesaid was entered
into is accepted in the affidavit in reply. It is
stated that advance compensation at the rate of
Rs.730/- per sq meter has been accepted by the
petitioners under protest. The affidavit records
that on 24th March 2005, a proposal for acquisition
of the said land was forwarded by the Municipal
Corporation to the District Collector. In paragraph
14, an assurance has been given by the Municipal
Corporation to give full co-operation to the
Collector for acquisition of the lands in question.
There is no reply filed by the State Government.

¶17

wp4578

¶18

¶19

4The petitioners have handed over the possession
of the land as described in paragraph 1 of the
petition to the first respondent-Corporation under
the agreement under which the Municipal Corporation
agreed to take steps for acquiring the lands in
accordance with law. However, the acquisition
proceedings has made no progress. The petitioners
have received only advance compensation. Therefore,
the acquisition proceedings will have to be taken to
its logical end as expeditiously as possible.

¶20

5It is obvious that advance compensation
received by the petitioners under protest will be
subject to final Award made on acquisition and in
the event a higher compensation is offered to the
petitioners, the amount paid earlier to the
petitioners by way of advance compensation shall be
adjusted towards compensation payable under the
Award.

¶21

6Hence, we pass the following order:

¶22

(i)We direct the representative of the
petitioners to appear before the District
Collector, Nashik on 14th July 2014 at 11.00
a.m.;

¶23

(ii)The representative of the petitioners
shall produce an authenticated copy of this
order before the District Collector;

¶24

(iii)The acquisition of the land in terms
of the proposal submitted by the first

¶25

4 wp4578

¶26

respondent-Corporation on 24th March 2005
shall be completed in accordance with law
as expeditiously as possible and in any
event within a period of one year from 14th
July 2014;

¶27

(iv)We make it clear that within a period
of one year from 14th July 2014, final
Award shall be passed determining the
compensation payable to the petitioners;

¶28

(v)WedirecttheNashikMunicipal
Corporation to submit a copy of proposal
dated 24th March 2005 to the District
Collector on or before 14th July 2014 to
enable the District Collector to take
further steps on the basis of the said
proposal;

¶29

(vi)Writ Petition is disposed of on above
terms;

¶30

(vii)All concerned to act upon an
authenticated copy of this order.

¶31

(A.S.CHANDURKAR,J.)

¶32

(A.S.OKA,J.)

Shri. Nana Hari Kharjul (Deceased) through Leag Heirs and Ors. v. Nashim Muncipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Nana Hari Kharjul (Deceased) through Leag Heirs and Ors. v. Nashim Muncipal Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sandeep Suresh Ghadge Vs Pandurgang Sahakari Sakhar Karkhanan Ltd. and Ors.

Ajim Abbas Mulani Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Govt of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sandeep Suresh Ghadge Vs Pandurgang Sahakari Sakhar Karkhanan Ltd. and Ors.

Suvir Indru Mirchandani Vs District Collector, Satara and Ors.

Abutalab Samsher Golandaj and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Urban Development and Ors.

Suvir Indru Mirchandani Vs District Collector, Satara and Ors.