Disposed

Ravindra Shivlal Agrawal and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC7 Jul 2016WP/417/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners alleged deemed grant of non-agricultural permission under Section 44 of the MLR Code due to authority inaction. Court acknowledged partial acquisition of land. Direction issued to authority to decide pending application within 90 days; otherwise witnessed disposal.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to respondent authority to consider petitioners' application for non-agricultural permission within 90 days.

Ravindra Shivlal Agrawal and Others Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 WP-417.15

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 417 OF 2015

¶4

Ravindra Shivlal Agrawal and others ...PETITIONERS

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶7

...RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr. Ajeet B. Kale, Advocate for petitioners Smt. S.S. Raut, AGP for respondents No. 1 to 3

¶9

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

¶10

DATED : 7^th JULY, 2016.

¶11

Order :-

¶12

Mr. Kale, learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners had applied for grant of non-agricultural permission in respect of land Gut No. 8-A admeasuring 2 Hectare, 80 Aar on 17-11-2006, however, no decision has been taken upon said application. As such, in view of provisions of Section 44 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966(for short “MLR Code”) non-agricultural permission is deemed to have been granted. According to learned counsel, area of 90 Aar which is earmarked for acquisition was not an impediment for granting nonagricultural permission. Said notification was also issued subsequent to the application of the petitioners. As no decision has been taken within time stipulated under section 44 of the MLR Code, non-agricultural permission is deemed to have been granted.

¶13

Learned Assistant Government Pleader states that possession of

¶14

the land to the extent of 3 Hectare, 60 Aar from land Gut No. 8-A had

¶15

2 WP-417.15

¶16

been taken by acquiring body way-back in the year 2009 itself as such, non agricultural permission could not be granted.

¶17

We have considered the submissions canvassed by learned counsel for respective parties. Taba Pawati has been also placed on record. From land Gut No. 8-A land admeasuring 90 Aar is taken in possession and remaining land appears to be from land Gut Nos. 8-B and 8C. The petitioners are concerned to the extent of land admeasuring 2 Hectare, 80 Aar from Gut No. 8A. It is a fact that out of said 2 Hectare 80 Aar , 90 Aar land is taken in possession by the Acquiring Body. Earlier section 4 notification was issued, however, the same has lapsed.

¶18

We would have considered the request of the petitioners about deemed non-agricultural permission, however, considering the fact that out of area owned and possessed by the petitioners some part is under acquisition, we pass following order-

¶19

Respondent-authority concerned shall consider application of the petitioners for grant of non-agricultural permission as early as possible preferably within a period of 90 (Ninety Days) from the date of this order.

¶20

Considering the aforesaid aspects of matter, writ petition stands disposed of. No costs

¶21

MTK

Ravindra Shivlal Agrawal and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra Shivlal Agrawal 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

The Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs the Director of Sugar and Ors.

Parvatidevi Mallikarjun Khanapure Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Krishna Limbajirao Jige Vs State Election Commission, Mumbai and Others

Jitendra Anupchand Jain and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Karansingh Sakharam Bhil and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ghula Jambha Bhil and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others