Allowed

Waman S/O Maroti Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra through District Collector Beed and Others

Bombay HC9 Jun 2016WP/3878/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the writ petition quashing the impugned order of the land acquisition authority based on identical facts to a previous judgment. The order mandates the filing of a reference application for enhanced compensation award, limiting statutory benefits until the date of this judgment.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order; directed respondent to refer the application for enhanced compensation to the Reference Court; denied statutory benefits for the period from 06.01.2003 to 09.06.2016 if enh

Waman S/O Maroti Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra through… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp387816.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3878 OF 2016

¶4

Waman s/o Maroti Jadhav, age: 54 years, Occ: Agril., R/o Ghatnandur, Tq.Ambajogai, District Beed. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

01 The State of Maharashtra,

¶7

through District Collector, Beed.

¶8

02 The Special Land Acquisition Officer, J.P. No.4, at Beed, Headquarter at Ambajogai, Tq. Ambajogai, District Beed.

¶9

03 The Executive Engineer,

¶10

Minor Irrigation, Zilla Parishad, Beed, Tq. & District Beed. Respondents

¶11

Mr.R.A.Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.A.R.Kale, AGP for Respondents No. 1 & 2. Mr.A.D.Aghav, advocate for Respondent No.3.

¶12

CORAM : R.M.BORDE & K.L.WADANE, JJ. DATE : 09th June, 2016

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M.Borde, J.):

¶14

1 Instant petition arises out of identical facts as in the matter of Laxman s/o Gangaram Holbole Vs. State of Maharashtra & others ( Writ Petition No.4411 of 2016 , decided on 16^th April, 2016) and as such, can be disposed of in terms of the order passed in the aforesaid Writ Petition.

¶15

wp387816.odt

¶16

{2}

¶17

2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.

¶18

3 In view of the reasons recorded by the Division Bench of this Court while disposing of Writ Petition No.4411 of 2016, instant petition also deserves to be allowed and same is accordingly allowed.

¶19

4 The order impugned in this petition is quashed and set aside. Petitioner shall pay the court fees within a period of three weeks from today. In case, petitioner pays court fees within stipulated period, the Respondent-authority shall refer Reference application to the Court, unless there is any other legal impediment. If the Reference Court awards enhanced amount of compensation, in that case, petitioner shall not be entitled to claim statutory benefits as provided under the statute for the period from 06.01.2003 till 09.06.2016.

¶20

5 Rule is accordingly made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶21

R.M.BORDE

¶22

K.L.WADANE R.M.BORDE JUDGE JUDGE

¶23

adb/wp387816

Waman S/O Maroti Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra through District Collector Beed and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Waman S/O Maroti Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra through District Collector Beed and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepa Narayan Baiswal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Panchayat Samiti Shrirampur through Its Chairman Vandana Aappasaheb Raut Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Magaswargiya Walmiki Industrical Co. Operative Society Ltd. Jalna through Its President Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jagannath Rangnath Akolkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sayema Sadaf Masiuddin Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Akhil Maharashtra Gramin Shikshan Vikas Mandal through Its President Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others