Disposed

Ahamadmiya Mohammad Ismail Patel and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC9 Sept 2015WP/528/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the non-decision of an application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The court directed that if the underlying appeals are disposed of, the officer must decide the application within six months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Special Land Acquisition Officer to decide the application of 24 March 1998 within six months from the date of disposal of the pending First Appeals or 12 October 2015 if earlier.

Ahamadmiya Mohammad Ismail Patel and Others Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2015)

wp528

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.528 OF 2008

¶5

Ahamadmiya Mohammad Ismail Pate
and others...Petitioners

¶6

vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

None for the Petitioners

¶10

Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶11

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 V.L.ACHLIYA, JJ.
 DATE : SEPTEMBER 9, 2015

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per A.S.OKA,J.)

¶13

1None appears for the petitioners. Heard the
learned AGP for the respondents.

¶14

2A very limited grievance has been made in this
petition. The grievance is that an application made
by the petitioners under sub-section (1) of section
28-A of the Land Acquisition Act,1894 (for short
`the said Act') has been kept pending. It is
pointed out that the said application was filed on
24th March 1998. There is a reply filed by one
Revati Gaikar, the Special Land Acquisition Officer,
Metro Centre 3, Panvel, District Raigad. In the
said reply it is pointed out that the application
under sub-section (1) of section section 28-A is
based on Awards made by the Reference Courts in
L.A.R.Nos.22 of 1986 and 319 of 1986. It is pointed
out that the First Appeals for challenging the said

¶15

2 wp528

¶16

Awards are pending in this Court and, therefore, the
application cannot be decided.

¶17

3If the First Appeals are pending, there is
every justification for the Special Land Acquisition
Officer to keep the application pending. However, if
the First Appeals have already been decided, the
application dated 24th March 1998 shall be decided on
merits provided it is filed within prescribed period
of limitation.

¶18

4Hence, we need not keep the petition pending.
We dispose of the petition by passing the following
order:

¶19

(I) We direct the petitioners or their authorised representative to remain present before the second respondent on 12^th October 2015 at 11.00 a.m. The petitioners shall produce an authenticated copy of this order as well as office copy of the application dated 24^th March 1998 on that day before the second respondent;

¶20

(II) If the said application is already disposed of, a copy of the order passed on the said application be provided to the petitioners within a period of one week from 12^th October 2015;

¶21

(III)If the application is still pending and if
the appeals preferred by the State Government
against the Awards made in L.A.R.Nos.26 of 1986
and 319 of 1986 have been already disposed of,

¶22

3 wp528

¶23

the second respondent shall proceed to decide
the said application in accordance with law
within a period of six months from 12th October
2015;

¶24

(IV) If the said application is pending and if the aforesaid First Appeals are still pending, the said application shall be disposed of within a period of six months from the date on which First Appeals are disposed of;

¶25

(V) Rule is made partly absolute on above terms;

¶26

(VI) Parties to act upon on an authenticated copy of the order;

¶27

wp528

¶28

¶29

CERTIFICATE

¶30

Certified to be true and correct copy of original
signed Judgment/Order.

Ahamadmiya Mohammad Ismail Patel and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ahamadmiya Mohammad Ismail Patel and Others 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

Shri. Dattatraya Babu Shewale and Ors. Vs the Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.

Shri. Shrikant Shivappa Ghugare and Ors. Vs the Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.

Attar Naziya Zakir Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justie and Special Assistance Dept and Ors.

Shri. Prakash Bhupal Akiwate Vs Liquidator, the Peoples Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Ichalkaranji and Ors.

Rameshbhai Purshottamdas Mehta Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Farah Ashphak Ali Shaha Vs Shaikh Razia Iqbal @ Charkhe Raziabi Abdul Karim