Disposed

Mrs. Sarala Sopan Thorat v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Sept 2016PIL/5/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In PIL No. 5 of 2016, the Bombay High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging land acquired for a sugar factory. The Court held that in the absence of villagers raising objections earlier, intervention at a belated stage is unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without further orders as no intervening was warranted at this belated stage.

Mrs. Sarala Sopan Thorat Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2016)

skc

23-PIL-5-16

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 5 OF 2016

¶7

Mrs. Sarala Sopan Thorat .. Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr. Uday Warunjikar i/b. Ms Aarti Bhide and Mr. Gajanan Shinde for Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Vishal Thadhani – AGP for State.

¶10

CORAM: DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, C. J. AND M. S. SONAK, J. DATE : 16 SEPTEMBER 2016

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1] Heard learned counsel Mr. Warunjikar.

¶13

2] We have gone through the contents of the writ petition. The main contention raised in the writ petition is the lands which were demarcated as “Gayran” were acquired way back in 2007 for the purposes of establishment of a sugar factory. The papers annexed to the writ petition indicate that in 2003 itself the process of acquisition by verification of lands to be acquired was commenced. Acquisition is over long ago and even the sugar factory for whom the lands were acquired is established. This is the fair submission of learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶14

3] According to the petitioner though the sugar factory is established and has become functional, still the court can intervene

1 of 2

skc 2

23-PIL-5-16

since there is violation of basic procedure while acquiring the lands for the said purpose of establishing a sugar factory. Be that as it may. The fact remains at this stage, that too in the absence of any of the villagers coming forward to question the same who should ought to have raised objection way back in 2007 when the lands were proposed to be acquired, we are of the opinion that at this belated stage we need not look into the matter. If any portion of the lands are not used for the purposes of establishment of factory, it is left to the respective owners, if they are entitled in law to approach the concerned authorities for any redressal, if permissible in law.

¶19

4] With these observations, writ petition is disposed of.

¶20

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶21

(M. S. SONAK, J.)

¶22

chandka

¶23

2 of 2

Mrs. Sarala Sopan Thorat v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Sarala Sopan Thorat v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sau. Priti W/O Vivek Mendhe (Nee Priti Rameshrao Udole) and Others Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary, Department of School Education and Sports, Mumbai and Another

Shaikh Shakir Abdul Sattar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jamil Shafi Ansari Vs Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Shri Rajendra Prasad Chaube, Municipal Councillor, Ward No. 3, Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Society for Nature Animals and People Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Sarita Bheda Vs the Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Shri. Prakash P. Kukreja Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mumbai Teachers Democratic Front (Tdf) through Its President Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anupam Brijmohan Nemani Vs Arun Banwarilal Saraf and 3 Ors.

Gibson Manuel Dsouza Vs Armstrong Joseph Dsouza

Peter John D'Souza and 11 Ors. Vs Triza Domnic Dsouza (Deceased) and Armstrong Joseph D'Souza (Respondent)

Yeshwanth Shenoy Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Imran Mohd. Ali Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Mr. Gopal Ishwarlal Jhaveri Vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Ors.