Shri Madhukar Alias Madhav Govind Pagare and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC4 Mar 2016WP/349/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment sets a time-bound schedule for deciding pending applications for re-determination of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The High Court direction requires the Special Land Acquisition Officer to report on pending appeals and decide the applications, either expeditiously or keeping them pending if appeals exist.

What did the court decide?

The Special Land Acquisition Officer directed to report on appeals against the Judgment and Award and decide the Section 28-A applications, if no appeals are pending, by 31st August 2016.

Shri Madhukar Alias Madhav Govind Pagare and Anr. Vs the… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2016)

sl2 to 8

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.235 OF 2016

¶5

Shashikala Chandrakant Pagare & Anr. ...Petitioners
vs.
State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents

¶6

 ...Respondents

¶7

ALONG WITH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.349 OF 2016

¶9

Madhukar @ Madhav Govind Pagare
and another ...Petitioners
vs.
State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents

¶10

ALONG WITH

¶11

WRIT PETITION NO.350 OF 2016

¶12

Prakash Amruta @ Amrutrao Pagare ...Petitioner
vs.

¶13

State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents

¶14

ALONG WITH

¶15

WRIT PETITION NO.356 OF 2016

¶16

Vijay Malhari Pagare ...Petitioner
vs.
State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents

¶17

ALONG WITH

¶18

WRIT PETITION NO.495 OF 2016

¶19

Amit Nana Pagare ...Petitioner
vs.
State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents

¶20

ALONG WITH

¶21

WRIT PETITION NO.700 OF 2016

¶22

sl2 to 8

¶23

¶24

Raju Nana Pagare ...Petitioner
vs.
State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents

¶25

Mr.Sachin Gite for the Petitioners in all petitions
Mr.V.B.Thadhani, AGP for the respondent No.1 in all
petitions

¶26

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 R.D.DHANUKA, JJ.
 DATE : MARCH 4, 2016

¶27

P.C.:

¶28

1Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned AGP for the respondent No.1. On 23rd
February 2016 when these petitions appeared on
board, the parties were put to notice that an
endeavour will be made to decide the petitions
finally at the stage of admission. Considering the
order which we are proposing to pass, notice to the
respondent No.2 which is claiming to be Acquiring
Body is dispensed with.

¶29

2The lands allegedly held by the petitioners
were acquired under the provisions of the Land
Acquisition Act,1894 (for short `the said Act').
The petitioners have made applications under sub-
section (1) of section 28-A of the said Act for re-
determination of compensation. The present
petitioners made the said applications on 14th May
2012. By the said applications, re-determination of
the compensation was sought by them on the basis of
the Judgment and Award dated 14th December 2011
passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge (S.D.),

¶30

3 sl2 to 8

¶31

Nashik in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.248/2004 to
266/2004 and 266 of 2004 on 14th December 2011.

¶32

3The submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the applications under sub-
section (1) of section 28-A have been kept pending
for inordinately long time. The learned AGP has no
instructions about the status of the pending
applications. Neither the learned counsel for the
petitioners nor the learned AGP are in a position to
state whether any appeal is pending against the
Judgment and Award passed in the Land Acquisition
Reference Nos.248 to 262 and 266 of 2004.

¶33

4If there are no appeals pending against the
said Judgment and Award, the Land Acquisition
Officer before whom the applications are pending is
under an obligation to decide the same within a
reasonable time. The applications are pending since
last more than three and half years. Therefore, the
applications will have to be decided in a time bound
schedule. If the appeals are pending against the
said Judgment and Award, it will be the discretion
of the Land Acquisition Officer to decide whether
the applications made by the petitioners should be
kept pending till the disposal of the Appeals or
should be decided in accordance with law.

¶34

5Hence, we dispose of the petitions by passing
the following order:

¶35

(I)We direct the petitioners or their

¶36

4 sl2 to 8

¶37

representative to appear before the Special
Land Acquisition Officer No.2 at Nashik on 4th
April 2016 at 11.00 a.m. The petitioners or
theirrepresentativeshallproducean
authenticated copy of this order before the
Special Land Acquisition Officer;

¶38

(II) After production of the authenticated copy of this Judgment and Order, the Special Land Acquisition Officer shall call for the report

¶39

on the issue whether any appeals preferred
against the Judgment and Award dated 14th
December 2011 in Land Acquisition Reference
Nos.248 of 2004 to 262 and 266 of 2004 are
pending;

¶40

(III) If the Special Land Acquisition Officer finds that no appeals are pending, he shall decide the pending applications under subsection (1) of Section 28-A of the said Act as expeditiously as possible and in any event on or before 31^st August 2016;

¶41

(IV) If the Special Land Acquisition Officer finds that the appeals are pending against the said Judgment and Award, it will be for the said Officer to decide whether the applications made by the petitioners shall be kept pending or the same can be decided;

¶42

(V) Needless to add that the Special Land Acquisition Officer will be under an obligation to give an opportunity of being heard to the respondent No.2 before deciding the pending applications;

¶43

(VI) The issue of maintainability of the pending

¶44

5 sl2 to 8

¶45

applications under sub-section (1) of section
28-A of the said Act as well as the issue of
limitation are kept open;

¶46

(VII)Writ petitions are disposed of on above
terms;

¶47

(VIII) All concerned to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.

¶48

(R.D.DHANUKA,J.) (A.S.OKA,J.)

Shri Madhukar Alias Madhav Govind Pagare and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Madhukar Alias Madhav Govind Pagare and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Shahaji Narsing Dhumal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Safia Parveen Abdul Munaf Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Pramod Baburao Suryavanshi Vs the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

Shoyeb Nazeer Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra through Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Shri. Ali Raza Abdul Rehman Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Shri Vijay Malhari Pagare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.