Disposed

Dnyaneshwar Rajaram Vitole and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Oct 2016WP/4758/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the High Court to dispose of the petition on the premise that the Corporation has marked additional land for a proposed road affecting petitioners' property, which requires measurement and acquisition before taking possession.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of. Petitioner directed to apply for measurement. Corporation granted 4 weeks to pay compensation for already acquired land. Corporation ordered to acquire additional land if af

Dnyaneshwar Rajaram Vitole and Anr. Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

Sr.No.12

¶2

WP 4758.16

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4758 OF 2016

¶4

Dnyaneshwar Rajaram Vitole and anr. ….Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and ors. …Respondents

¶5

Mr. Amit B. Borkar, advocate for the petitioners. Mr. C. P. Yadav, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Deepak R. More, advocate for respondent No.3.

¶6

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.

¶7

DATE : 6^th OCTOBER, 2016.

¶8

P. C. :

¶9

Heard learned counsel and learned AGP appearing for the respective parties.

¶10

Mr. Borkar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the land admeasuring 663 square meters out of Survey No.83/1 at Mouje Wakad, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune, belonging to the petitioners is already acquired by respondent – Corporation, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have marked area of 2000 out of the said survey number as same is affected by proposed road sanctioned by notification dated 9^th July, 2008. He submitted that without there being acquisition, the area excess of 663 square meters cannot be taken possession of by the respondent – Corporation. He further submitted that without resorting to the proceedings of acquisition, respondent

Shubhada S Kadam 1/3

Sr.No.12

WP 4758.16

Nos. 2 and 3 are trying to take possession of remaining land admeasuring about 1350 square meters.

¶15

Mr. More, learned counsel for the Corporation, on instructions, stated that the map relied upon by the petitioners defers from the map relied upon by the respondent – Corporation. He submitted that the survey number and land under acquisition be directed to be measured by DILR and, in case, any additional area is found to be affected by the DP road, the same will be acquired in accordance with law. Mr. Borkar, learned counsel for the petitioners, has no objection if this exercise is carried out.

¶16

In the above circumstances, we dispose of the petition by passing the following order:

¶17

The petitioners shall approach the DILR- Pune with an application for measuring the subject land viz. survey No.83/1 at Mouje Wakad, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune, along with marking of the DP Road.

¶18

In the event, such an application is preferred by the petitioners within two weeks from today, the DILR – Pune or any other officer authorized on his behalf, shall carry out the measurement of the subject land and marking of the DP Road within a period of four weeks thereafter.

¶19

The petitioners and the authorized representative of the Corporation shall remain present at the subject survey number at the time of measurement.

Shubhada S Kadam 2/3

Sr.No.12

WP 4758.16

In the event, it is found that the land belonging to the petitioners in excess of 663 square meters out of the subject survey number is affected by the DP Road, then, the Corporation shall acquire the additional land and pay compensation to the petitioners in accordance with law.

¶24

Mr. Borkar, learned counsel for the petitioners, at this stage stated that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have also not paid compensation to the petitioners for the area admeasuring 663 square meters which is already acquired. Mr. More learned counsel for the Corporation and learned AGP do not dispute their liability to pay compensation to the petitioners in respect of the area already acquired and they stated that the amount of compensation for the said area would be paid over to the petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The statement is accepted.

¶25

In the light of above, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶26

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) [RANJIT MORE, J.]

¶27

Shubhada S Kadam 3/3

Dnyaneshwar Rajaram Vitole and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dnyaneshwar Rajaram Vitole and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Urban Development Dept. 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

Deepak Dattatray Vertak Vs the New India Assurancer Co. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Smt Thamabai Ganpat Patil Shikshan Sanstha Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shri. Shriram Namdev Shejwal and Ors. Vs Vitthal Ganpat Shejwal and Ors.

Payal Ramchandra Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Shaikh Saniya Mohammed Sadique Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Deepa Veer Ganjoo and Ors. Vs the Registrar, Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and Ors.