Allowed

Special Land Acquisition Officer (4) v. Shamshida Wd/O. Mohd. Iqbal Abdul Hamid and 4 Ors. Legal Hairs (Applicant)

Bombay HC15 Jul 2016CHS/1278/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court considered an application to amend a claim under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act, arguing that unacquired land remains deemed acquired post-constitution. The court allowed the amendment, permitting full consideration of merits at the substantive hearing without requiring fresh evidence.

What did the court decide?

Amendment of claim allowed to be carried out within two weeks; case listed for hearing on 12 August 2016.

Special Land Acquisition Officer (4) Vs Shamshida Wd/O… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

L.A.R. 11-90.doc

¶2

1/2

¶3

Chittewan

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIGINAL SIDE

¶5

CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1278 OF 2016 IN

¶6

LAND ACQUISITION REFERENCE NO.11 OF 1990 WITH LAND ACQUISITION REFERENCE NO.11 OF 1990

¶7

Smt. Shamsida wd/o. Mohd. Iqbal Abdul Hamid

¶8

Abdul Hamid .. Applicant (Org.Claimant) In the matter of : Special Land Acquisition Officer (4) Mumbai Suburban District .. Acquiring Body Versus Smt. Shamsida wd/o. Mohd. Iqbal Abdul Hamid 1(a) Imran Mohd. Iqbal Abdul Hamid And Others .. Claimants.

¶9

Mr. Pradeep Kadam i/b V.N. Kamble for Claimant No.1(a) to 1(d). Mr. S.R. Rajguru a/w M/s Purnima Awasthi for the Acquiring Body.

¶10

CORAM : S.C.GUPTE, J.

¶11

DATE : 15 JULY 2016.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶14

2 By this chamber summons, the Applicants, who are original claimants, seek to amend their claim as per the Schedule annexed to the affidavit in support of chamber summons.

¶15

3 It is the case of the claimants that the acquiring body has not

¶16

2/2

¶17

Chittewan

¶18

L.A.R. 11-90.doc

¶19

acquired 1360 square meters of land from out of the total land admeasuring 12925 square meters belonging to the claimants. It is submitted that the applicants-claimants are entitled to move this amendment on the footing that under Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, this portion of land admesuring 1360 square meters is deemed to be not acquired, as no compensation for the same has been paid.

¶20

4 Mr. Rajguru, learned Counsel for the acquiring body opposes the chamber summons on the ground that evidence in LAR has been fully recorded and the LAR is ripe for hearing and that it would not be permissible to widen the scope of the LAR at this stage. Learned Counsel for the applicants-claimants submits that the matter sought to be introduced by way of the proposed amendment, is merely a matter of law and does not call for leading of any fresh or new evidence. He submits that he shall not apply for leading any further evidence in the LAR based on the amendment. The statement is accepted. In that case, it is in the interest of justice that the amendment is permitted, by keeping all contentions of the parties on merits of the amendment open, to be decided at the hearing of the LAR.

¶21

5 Chamber Summons is accordingly allowed. The amendment shall be carried out within two weeks from today. A copy of the amended claim shall be handed over to the Advocate of the acquiring body. LAR to come up for hearing on 12 August 2016 at 03.00 p.m.

¶22

(S.C.GUPTE, J.)

Special Land Acquisition Officer (4) v. Shamshida Wd/O. Mohd. Iqbal Abdul Hamid and 4 Ors. Legal Hairs (Applicant)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Special Land Acquisition Officer (4) v. Shamshida Wd/O. Mohd. Iqbal Abdul Hamid and 4 Ors. Legal Hairs (Applicant)

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

Db Reality Limited Vs Mahal Pictures Pvt. Ltd. and 7 Ors.

Db Reality Limited Vs Mahal Pictures Pvt. Ltd. and 7 Ors.

Mumbai Mazdoor Sabha Vs Kiran Rasiklal Mehta

Awadhnarayan S Rajbhar Vs Sigma Paints Ltd. and Anr.

Nazirkhan Sherkhan Vs the Metal Printers

Mr. Sachin Bhupal Bargale and Ors. Vs M/S. Star Flexi-Pack Industries (I)Pvt. Ltd. through Its Executive Director