Disposed

Babasaheb Duli Rathod and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC21 Jun 2016WP/10184/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Writ Court directed the respondents to initiate land acquisition proceedings and publish a notification under section 19 of the 2013 Act within three months, ensuring completion within the statutory timeframe, despite a lapse since the earlier 1994 notification.

What did the court decide?

direction to initiate acquisition proceedings, publish notification under section 19 of the Act of 2013 within three months, and complete proceedings within the statutory period.

Babasaheb Duli Rathod and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 WP-10184.15

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 10184 OF 2015

¶4

Balasaheb Duli Rathod and others

¶5

...PETITIONERS

¶6

versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and others ...RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr. Rahul R. Deshmuh, Advocate for petitioners Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondents

¶9

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 21^st JUNE, 2016.

¶11

Order :-

¶12

Mr. Rahul Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits

¶13

that in the year 2006 respondents have taken possession of the petitioners' property for construction of percolation tank. Learned counsel further submits that notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short " Act of 1894") was issued in 2010, however, acquisition proceeding was not taken up. Learned counsel for petitioners further submits that even under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition (Rehabilitation and Resettlement) Act, 2013 (for short "Act of 2013") also no steps are being taken.

¶14

Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that affidavit inreply is filed by Sub-Divisional Officer, Partur and it is stated that the respondents have calculated the compensation as payable as per ready

¶15

2 WP-10184.15

¶16

reckoner and has also prepared proposed E-statement. Said proceedings would be initiated.

¶17

In fact, when respondents had already issued notification under section 4 of the Act of 1894, it was expected for the respondents to complete acquisition proceedings as property of petitioners has been already taken in possession by the respondents.

¶18

This Court had directed the respondents to place on record the schedule within which time acquisition proceedings would be completed. The provisions of Act of 2013 lays down that the Collector has to pass award/declaration within 12 months from the date of publication of preliminary notification as contemplated in section 19 of the Act of 2013.

¶19

Considering the above, respondents shall initiate proceedings of acquisition and publish notification under section 19 of the Act of 2013 within three months from the date of this order and complete the acquisition proceedings within period laid down in the Act of 2013.

¶20

With aforesaid direction, writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Sd/-

¶23

MTK

Babasaheb Duli Rathod and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babasaheb Duli Rathod and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Magasvargiya Kashtakari Sahkari Griha Nirman Society Ltd, Aurangabad Vs State of Maharashtra and Another

Sudhakar Vishnupant Subhedar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shahada Taluka Co-Operative Education Society Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation Ltd. Vs Ambrushi Mohan Lomte and Ors.

Indus Towers Limited and Others Vs Municipal Corporation, Dhule and Others

Sudhakar Dattatraya Deomali Vs Indian Oil Corporation and Others