Allowed

Mr. Sainath Hender Raut, through Poa, Mr. Ramesh Maruti Bhekre v. the State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Urban Development and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Dec 2014WP/5735/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the writ petition on terms directing the second respondent to verify the petitioner's deposit of the exempted amount and subsequently grant the extension of time as per the earlier letter dated 16th August 2013.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed with direction to second respondent to verify deposit and grant extension within one month if payment is made.

Mr. Sainath Hender Raut, through Poa, Mr. Ramesh Maruti… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

ash

wp-5735.14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.5735 OF 2014

¶6

Mr. Sainath Hender Raut. .. Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra and Another. .. Respondents

¶7

Shri S.M. Oak i/by Shri Sagar A. Joshi for the Petitioner. Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶8

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.S.GADKARI, JJ DATED : 18TH DECEMBER 2014

¶9

P.C.

¶10

. On 28^th November 2014, the parties were put to notice that

¶11

this Petition shall be disposed of finally at the stage of admission.

¶12

The Petitioner is relying upon an order of exemption under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short “the ULC Act”).

¶13

On 2^nd April 2013, the Constituted Attorney of the Petitioner made an Application to the Competent Authority of the Urban Agglomeration, Thane, for grant of extension of time to implement the terms and conditions of the order of exemption. The Additional Collector and Competent Authority (second Respondent) by a letter dated 16^th August 2013 informed the Petitioner that extension of time

¶14

ash 2 wp-5735.14

¶15

as provided in Clause (1) of the said letter will be granted subject to the Petitioner depositing the amount as specified in the said letter within a period of 15 days from the date of the said letter. The Petitioner is relying upon the letter dated 23^rd August 2013 addressed by his Constituted Attorney to the second Respondent along with which a demand draft in the sum of Rs.2,38,476/- was deposited.

¶16

Though time was granted to the learned AGP, he states that notwithstanding a letter addressed by him to the second Respondent, the said Respondent has not responded. Therefore, we will have to proceed on the footing that the letter dated 16^th August 2013 (Exhibit-C to the Petition) is legal and valid.

¶17

Hence, if the Petitioner has deposited the amount payable as demanded in the letter dated 16^th August 2013 within the time stipulated therein, an action will have to be taken by the second Respondent in terms of what is stated in the said letter.

¶18

Hence, we dispose of the Petition by passing the following

¶19

order:

¶20

ORDER:

¶21

(a) We direct the Petitioner or his authorised

¶22

representative to remain present in the office of the

ash

wp-5735.14

second Respondent on 7^th January 2015 at 11.00

¶27

a.m.;

¶28

(b) The Petitioner or his authorised representative shall produce an authenticated copy of this order before the second Respondent;

¶29

(c) The second Respondent shall verify whether the Petitioner has deposited the entire amount as demanded by the letter dated 16^th August 2013 (Exhibit-C to the Petition) within the time stipulated therein;

¶30

(d) If the second Respondent finds that the requisite amount is deposited within the time stipulated in the letter dated 16^th August 2013, within a period of one month from 7^th January 2015, he shall take action in terms of what is stated in the said letter dated 16^th August 2013 (Exhibit-C to the Petition);

¶31

(e) The Petition is allowed on above terms;

¶32

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

¶33

( A.S. OKA, J )

Mr. Sainath Hender Raut, through Poa, Mr. Ramesh Maruti Bhekre v. the State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Urban Development and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Sainath Hender Raut, through Poa, Mr. Ramesh Maruti Bhekre v. the State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Urban Development and Anr.

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

Kupwad Vivid Karyakari Sahakari Seva Sanstha, Kupwad through Its Chairman Vs the Honble Minister, Ministry of Food and Ors.

New Standard Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs Ampsons Plastics Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Prathamesh Constructions, through Partner, Mr. Shirish Riswadkar Vs the Municipal Corporation of City of Pune and Ors.

Shri. Kailas Balasaheb Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept and Ors.

Swastik Industrial Corporation through Its Partner Nilesh Pradeep Chatranband Vs the State of Maharashtra Throgh Its Secretary, Social Welfare Dept. and Ors.

Akhil Chandramangar Mitramandal, through Secretary, Mr. Kamalakar Gulabrao Salvi Vs Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors.