Dismissed

Subhash Maruti Futane and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Collector, Amravati Division and Another

Bombay HC3 Mar 2015WP/7218/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged non-issuance of personal hearing under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act. The Court noted they received notices and a hearing was held on 22.11.2013. Finding no unilateral disregard for service, the petition was rejected.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition No. 7218 of 2014 is rejected.

What the court decided

Subhash Maruti Futane and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

3.3wp7218.14

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 7218 OF 2014. Subhash Maruti Futane & others .vs. The State of Maharashtra & others

¶5

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶6

Mr. A.B. Nakshane, Advocate for petitioners, Mr. A. D. Sonak, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 & 2.

¶7

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & SMT. MRIDULA R. BHATKAR, JJ. DATED : MARCH 3, 2015.

¶8

The petitioners have approached this Court with a grievance that personal hearing has not been given to the petitioners in the proceedings under Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act and a notification is passed under Section 6 of the Act.

¶9

It is specifically averred in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the State that notices were issued to the petitioners for hearing under Section 5-A of the said Land Acquisition Act. It has also been categorically stated that the hearing was given on 22.11.2013. The petitioner nos. 1, 2, 11, 24 & 30 filed objections.

¶10

It is sought to be contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the hearing is given only to five persons.

¶11

3.3wp7218.14

¶12

¶13

However, the learned Counsel does not dispute the receipt of notices under Section 5-A of the Act by all the petitioners. If the petitioners in spite of being served with notice do not choose to appear, the authorities cannot be expected to wait for an unlimited period. In that view of the matter, we do not find that any case is made out for interference.

¶14

The Writ Petition is hence rejected.

¶15

Judge J.

¶16

Judge

Subhash Maruti Futane and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Collector, Amravati Division and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Subhash Maruti Futane and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Collector, Amravati Division and Another

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 Vishwanath Narayanrao Garde Vs Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Washim and 6 Others

Satchikitsa Prasarak Mandal and 3 Others Vs the Mahy.University of Health Sciences,Nashik and 3 Others

Ku. Yogita D/O Harishchandra Kolhekar Vs Zp, Wardha Thr. Its Chief Executive Officer

Laxmibai Wd/O Ishwarchand Joshi and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Chief Secretary, Urban Development Department,Mumbai and Other

Avinash Trimbarao Begade and Others Vs Maroti Govinda Dhiwar (Dead), Kalavati Bewa Maroti Shivarkar and Others

Avinash Trimbarao Begade and Others Vs Maroti Govinda Dhiwar (Dead), Kalavati Bewa Maroti Shivarkar and Others