Dismissed

Shri. Shivgonda Ramgonda Patil v. Mohan Shivram Vaskar (Pap) and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Mar 2015WP/6549/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petitioner sought direction to return land acquired by the State and allotted to another party on grounds of breached conditions. The Court held that once land vests under the Land Acquisition Act, the allottee's breach is a matter between the State and the allottee, rendering the writ petition unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition failed and dismissed with no order as to costs.

Shri. Shivgonda Ramgonda Patil Vs Mohan Shivram Vaskar (Pap)… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

Sherla V.

¶2

wp.6549.2014_911.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.6549 OF 2014

¶5

Shri Shivgonda Ramgonda Patil ... Petitioner

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Mohan Shivram Vaskar (PAP) & Ors. ... Respondents

¶8

Mr.M.S. Lagu for the Petitioner Mr.Vikas Mali, Assistant Government Pleader, for Respondent Nos.2 & 3

¶9

CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK & SHRI C.V. BHADANG, JJ.

¶10

DATE: 5^th MARCH, 2015

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No.2 State to decide the representation made by the petitioner and return the land of the petitioner acquired by the State of Maharashtra under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for rehabilitation of the project affected persons.

¶13

It appears that the land of the petitioner was acquired by the State Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 before the year 2000. After the acquisition of the land, the land was alloted by the State Government to the respondent No.1 – project affected person on certain terms and conditions. It is the case of the petitioner that certain

¶14

1 / 3

¶15

wp.6549.2014_911.doc

¶16

terms and conditions of the allotment have been breached by the Respondent No.1, inasmuch as the respondent No.1 has executed a registered deed of power of attorney empowering the holder thereof to alienate the land and perform other acts which are necessary for the maintainance of the land and also the sale thereof. According to the petitioner, the government is obliged to return the land to the petitioner as the respondent No.1 has breached the conditions of allotment.

¶17

On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be granted. The land of the petitioner was acquired more than 15 years earlier. As soon as the land was acquired, the land has vested in the government in view of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The government has allotted the land in favour of the Respondent No.1. If the conditions of allotment are breached by the respondent No.1, it is a matter between the State Government and the respondent No.1. The petitioner has no concern with the same. The petitioner has also no right to seek the possession of the land once it is acquired by the State Government. Also, on a reading of the deed of power of attorney, it does not appear that the Respondent No.1 has breached any of the terms and conditions of the allotment as the deed authorises the power of attorney holder to utilise the property and if

¶18

2 / 3

¶19

wp.6549.2014_911.doc

¶20

necessary, sell the same only after securing the necessary permissions from the concerned authorities. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any right in the petitioner to seek the possession of the lands that were acquired before the year 2000. In such circumstances, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted.

¶21

In the result, the Writ Petition fails and is dismissed with no order as

¶22

to costs.

¶23

(C.V. BHADANG, J.) (VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)

¶24

3 / 3

Shri. Shivgonda Ramgonda Patil v. Mohan Shivram Vaskar (Pap) and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Shivgonda Ramgonda Patil v. Mohan Shivram Vaskar (Pap) 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

Alex Paulo Cos and Ors. Vs Vasai Virar Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Shri. Ashok Shivling Bhuinjkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Gaurav Vijayrao Kulkarni Vs the Savitribai Phule Pune University and Ors.

Dnyandev Bala Mahadik Vs Narayanrao @ Himatrao Nanasaheb Mane-Deshmukh

Shri. Shivgonda Ramgonda Patil Vs Mohan Shivram Vaskar (Pap) and Ors.

Samajwadi Party (Solapur Zilla Gramin) through the President Shri Sarjerao R. Jadhav Vs the Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad and Ors.