Disposed

Gram Panchayat, Mamurabad Thr. Its Sarpanch v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC21 Sept 2015PIL/49/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL sought directions to commence construction of Asoda Branch Canal in village Mamurabad. The court found that separate directions were unnecessary following its recent judgments on compensation proceedings. It directed the authorities to begin work upon completion of acquisition under the 2013 Act.

What did the court decide?

No separate directions issued; pending civil application disposed of.

Gram Panchayat, Mamurabad Thr. Its Sarpanch Vs the State… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

pil4914.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.49 OF 2014

¶5

Gram Panchayat, Mamurabad, through its Sarpanch, Shri Raosaheb s/o Hari Patil, age: 42 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Village Mamurabad, Tq. & District Jalgaon. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

01 The State of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.

¶8

02 The Collector, Jalgaon.

¶9

03 The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.1, Jalgaon.

¶10

04 The Executive Director, Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon.

¶11

05 The Executive Engineer, Waghur Dam Division, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon.

¶12

06 M/s Mall Enterprises,

¶13

'RAMDEV”, Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad.

¶14

07 M/s Paramkripa Constructions,

¶15

Aurangabad.

¶16

Respondents

¶17

Mr.P.M.Shah, Senior Counsel i/by Mr.G.N.Patil, advocate for the petitioner

¶18

Mrs.M.A.Deshpande, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 3. Mr.S.D.Dhongade, advocate for Respondents No.4 & 5.

¶19

{2}

¶20

pil4914.odt

¶21

CORAM : R.M.BORDE &

¶22

V.K.JADHAV, JJ. Reserved on : 15^th September, 2015 Pronounced on : 21^st September, 2015

¶23

PER COURT:

¶24

1 The petitioner, in the instant Public Interest Litigation, seeks directions to the Respondents-authorities to take steps for taking possession of acquired lands and to start construction work of Asoda Branch Canal of Waghur Irrigation Project to the extent of 1.87 K.M and minor Nos. 4 and 5 in the area of village Mamurabad and complete the construction work of the said canal within prescribed time frame.

¶25

2 We have separately dealt with writ petitions i.e. WPs No.2390 of 2015 and 610 of 2014, challenging acquisition proceedings by the claimants whose land is sought to be acquired for Asoda Branch Canal, including the claimants residing in village Mamurabad; and issued certain directions in respect of determination of compensation in accordance with provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

¶26

3 In view of the judgment delivered by us today in Writ Petitions No.2390 of 2015 and 610 of 2014, no separate directions need be issued in the instant PIL. It would be obligatory on the part of Respondent-State authorities to commence the work of construction of Asoda Branch Canal of Waghura Irrigation Project to the extent of 1.87 K.M and minor Nos. 4 and 5 in the area of

¶27

pil4914.odt

¶28

{3}

¶29

village Mamurabad on completion of acquisition proceedings in accordance with provisions of the Act of 2013.

¶30

4 We have already provided time frame of six months for determination of amount of compensation and payment of amount to the claimants. It would be obligatory on the part of RespondentState authorities to resume construction work of branch canal and complete same within shortest possible time frame.

¶31

5 In the facts and circumstances of the case, no separate directions need be issued in the instant Public Interest Litigation and same stands disposed of accordingly. Pending Civil Application, if any, does not survive and stand disposed of.

V.K.JADHAV JUDGE

R.M.BORDE

JUDGE

adb/pil4914

Gram Panchayat, Mamurabad Thr. Its Sarpanch v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gram Panchayat, Mamurabad Thr. Its Sarpanch 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Fulchand S/O Swaminath Yadav Vs Nagpur Improvement Trust, through Its Chairman, Nagpur and 3 Others

Mr.Ahmad Ibrahim Rashankar and 9 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 8 Ors.

Shri. Vikrant Chavan Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Maruti Prabhakarrao Dhongade and Others Vs the Regional Officer Maharashtra Pollution Control Board and Otehrs

Chetan Kothari Vs Union of India, Th. Secretary,Govt. of India and 3 Ors.

Altaf Ahmed Iqbal Ahmed Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mr. Harendra S/O. Hansraj Ved Vs the Union of India, through the Ministry of Civil Aviation, New Delhi and Others

Chandrashekhar Kachruji Sarode Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Lata Mohanlal Gandhi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

M/S Star Scale Repairing Center, Jalna and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gajanan Digambar Lande Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Dilip Narayan Chaudhari and Others Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Shankar Sonu Bharambe and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prakash Narayanrao Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others