Disposed

Shri Umesh Digambar Jambhulkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Apr 2016WP/2484/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of writ petitions challenging lapsed land acquisition proceedings. The court held that since the proceedings had lapsed, the Deputy Collector must direct officials to delete reservation entries from revenue records within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Deputy Collector to direct officials to delete reservation entries from Revenue records within six weeks.

Shri Umesh Digambar Jambhulkar Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

920 & 922 wp 11917.15.doc

¶2

Urmila Ingale

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 11917 OF 2015

¶6

Shri Bhimrao Kisan Buchade ...Petitioner Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ...Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 174 OF 2016 Shri Balasaheb Vitthal Bendre ...Petitioner Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 181 OF 2016 Shri Maruti Kashinath Hulavale ...Petitioner Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ...Respondent

¶7

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2460 OF 2016

¶8

Shri. Kisan Shivram Mohite And Ors. ...Petitioners Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ...Respondents

¶9

1/6

¶10

920 & 922 wp 11917.15.doc

¶11

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2474 OF 2016

¶12

Shri Baban Dhondiba Bhintade
Through His POA Holder
Shri. Bhimaji S. Jambhulkar ...Petitioner Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2484 OF 2016
Shri Umesh Digambar Jambhulkar ...Petitioner Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ...Respondents
WITH Writ Petition NO. 11918 OF 2015
Shri Dattatray Shankar Buchade ...Petitioner Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ...Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11919 OF 2015
Shri Chindhu Damu Buchade ...Petitioner Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11920 OF 2015
Shri Sunil Arjun Jagtap ...Petitioner Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors . ..Respondents

¶13

2/6

¶14

920 & 922 wp 11917.15.doc

¶15

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11921	OF 2015
Shri Prakash Haribhau Buchade Versus	...Petitioner
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors	...Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11922	OF 2015
Shri Sukhdeo Sahadu Buchade Versus	...Petitioner
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors	...Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11923	OF 2015
Shri Vasant Dattatray Sakhare Versus	...Petitioner
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors	...Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11924	OF 2015
Shri Baburao Govind Buchade Versus	...Petitioner
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors	...Respondents
WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11938	OF 2015
Shri Rajaram Maruti Buchade Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Ors	...Petitioner ...Respondents

¶16

3/6

¶17

920 & 922 wp 11917.15.doc

¶18

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11946 OF 2015

¶19

Shri Prabhakar Dagadu Buchade ...Petitioner Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12759 OF 2015 Shri Bhausaheb Haribhau Bendre ...Petitioner Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 12769 OF 2015 Shri Goraksh Baban Hulavale And Anr. ...Petitioners Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4402 OF 2016 Anusaya Bhosale ...Petitioner Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Suresh M.Sabrad, for the Petitioners. Mr.P. P. Kakade, AGP for State.

¶20

CORAM : V. M. KANADE & M.S.KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 27^th APRIL, 2016

¶21

4/6

¶22

920 & 922 wp 11917.15.doc

¶23

P.C. :

¶24

. The petitioners by these Petitions have

¶25

challenged the acquisition proceedings which were initiated by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.

¶26

The grievance of the petitioners is that though the acquisition proceedings had lapsed, the entries made in the Revenue record reserving the land for project affected persons have not been deleted. The Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) No.22, Pune has filed affidavit in reply. He has stated in the reply that since the acquisition proceedings initiated by respondent No.3 could not be completed, the same have lapsed. In view of this affidavit in reply, there is no manner of doubt that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the said land have lapsed and a formal notification to that effect is remained to be issued. We, therefore, direct respondent No.2 to direct his officials to delete the entries of reservation from the Revenue record of

¶27

5/6

¶28

920 & 922 wp 11917.15.doc

¶29

the land owned by the petitioners as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of 6 weeks from today. The Petitions are accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶30

( M.S.KARNIK, J.)

¶31

(V. M. KANADE, J.)

¶32

6/6

Shri Umesh Digambar Jambhulkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Umesh Digambar Jambhulkar v. the 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

Mr. Pravin Kishor Puro and Anr. Vs the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corpn., through Its Commissioner and Ors.

Shri.Vithoba Devasthan Thr. Occupier Ram P. Gaikwad Deceased Thr. Lrs. Kesarinath Ram Gaikwad and O Vs the State of Maharashtra through Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr.

Shri. Kirshnaraj Gopaldas Khimji Vs Karmaveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society, through Its Trustees Shri. Balasaheb Deoram Wagh and O

Shri. Kisan Shivram Mohite and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Balasaheb Vitthal Bendre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Maruti Kashinath Hulavale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.