Dismissed

Shri. Shamrao Govindrao Shendge and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Sept 2015WP/7073/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected a writ petition seeking restoration of land possessed by the State for over 40 years without prior objection. The court held the petitioners suffered gross delay and their predecessors never raised a grievance regarding the taking over of the land.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shri. Shamrao Govindrao Shendge and Anr. Vs State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2015)

ash

wp-7073.13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7073 OF 2013

¶5

Shri Shamrao Govindrao Shendge and Another. .. Petitioners Vs State of Maharashtra and Others. .. Respondents

¶6

Shri S.A. Ghaisas i/by Shri A.M. Joshi for the Petitioners. Shri V.S. Gokhale,AGP for the Respondents.

¶7

CORAM : A.S. OKA & V.LACHLIYA, JJ DATED : 23RD SEPTEMBER 2015

¶8

P.C.

¶9

. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents.

¶10

The land subject matter of this Petition bearing Gat No.519/1 (Old) (New Gat No.188/1) was originally owned by the predecessor of the Petitioners late Shankar Babu Shendge. The contention of the Petitioners is that in the year 1974, the land admeasuring 2 Hectares and 2 Ares out of the land held by the said Shankar Babu Shendge was acquired for the purposes of the rehabilitation of the project affected persons of “Veer Baji Pasalkar Dam”. A further contention is that another portion of the land admeasuring 46 Ares was acquired for the purposes of constructing the Mutha Canal.

ash

wp-7073.13

The first prayer in this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for restoration of possession of an area of 46 Ares. The second prayer is for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to pay compensation for the said area. The third prayer is again for payment of compensation for the illegal user of the said land.

¶15

The letter dated 15^th December 2007 (Exhibit “C” to the Petition) addressed to the second Petitioner by the Deputy Chief Engineer shows that at least, as in the year 2007, the second Petitioner was aware that the area admeasuring 46 Ares was used by the Irrigation Department for construction of the Mutha Canal. The subject and the reference set out on first page of the said letter shows that a representation was made by the second Petitioner on 3^rd April 2007 for grant of a certificate showing that the land admeasuring 46 Ares has been acquired for new Mutha Canal. The certificate was denied to the Petitioners. Thereafter, no steps were taken by the Petitioners. On 19^th January 2010, an application was made by the Petitioners to the Respondents claiming allotment of land admeasuring 46 Ares. It was contended by them that they were entitled to the allotment of land admeasuring 2 Ares by way of compensation. Under the order dated 1^st July 2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4137 of 2010, this Court directed the Respondents to decide the said representation of the

¶16

ash

¶17

3 wp-7073.13

¶18

Petitioners. By a communication dated 27^th June 2010, the Additional Collector, Pune informed the Petitioners that none of the provisions of the Resettlement Acts of the year 1976, 1986 and 1999 were made applicable for acquisition of the land admeasuring 46 Ares for construction of the Canal.

¶19

Thus, it appears to us that the land admeasuring 46 Ares was taken over for construction of the Canal prior to the year 2007. The Petitioners have not specified the date or month or the year in which the said land was taken over. There are vague averments made in Clause (F) of the Paragraph 1 of the Petition. The Petitioners’ predecessor-in-title never made any grievance regarding the taking over of the area of 46 Ares. The letter dated 15^th December 2007 at Exhibit-C to the Petition addressed by the Deputy Executive Engineer, Khadakwasla Irrigation Department, Pune, to the second Petitioner shows that on 3^rd April 2007, the second Petitioner applied for a certificate stating that the land admeasuring 46 Ares has been acquired for construction of the Mutha Canal.

¶20

From 2007 till 2010, no action was taken by the Petitioners. On 19^th January 2010, a representation was made by the Petitioners seeking allotment of the land. The said prayer has been rightly rejected by the communication dated 27^th June 2012.

ash

wp-7073.13

We must note here that in prayer clause (b), the Petitioners have admitted that the area of 46 Ares is in possession of the State Government for a period of 40 years and more. Thus, the said area has been utilized for Canal at least in the year 1973.

¶25

It is too late in the day now to make a grievance about the illegal acquisition of the area of 46 Ares. The Petitioners’ predecessors never made any such grievance. The Petition suffers from gross delay. In any case, this is not a fit case to allow the Petitioners to invoke discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is accordingly rejected.

ash

wp-7073.13

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

Shri. Shamrao Govindrao Shendge and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shri. Shamrao Govindrao Shendge and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Revenue Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parkbay Co-Operative Housing Society Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.

Kumar Builders Mumbai Realty Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Ms Vasumati Mangaldas Shah and Ors.

Mewalal Sahebdin Verma Vs the State of Maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Parvatabai Tukaram Shivekar Vs Mr. Vikas Deshmukh, Pune Collector and Ors.

Vijay Swatvadas Motwani and Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of the City Pimpri Chinchwad and Ors.