Quashed

Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation Jalgaon v. Rama Rupa Naik

Bombay HC16 Jun 2016WP/5102/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court disposed of writ petitions challenging exclusion of the petitioner in proceedings under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The court directed the petitioner to file appropriate applications in pending appeals against the Reference Court's award.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions quashed; petitioner directed to make applications in pending appeals. No costs.

Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation Jalgaon Vs Rama Rupa… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 wp 5099.07

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 5099 OF 2007

¶4

Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation, Jalgaon through its Chief Engineer .. Petitioner Versus Sau. Tagibai Sangaji Naik and another .. Respondents

¶5

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5100 OF 2007

¶6

Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation, Jalgaon through its Chief Engineer .. Petitioner Versus Ashok Kapurchand Pawar and another .. Respondents

¶7

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5101 OF 2007

¶8

Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation, Jalgaon through its Chief Engineer .. Petitioner Versus Pandu Mohan Pawar and another .. Respondents

¶9

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5102 OF 2007

¶10

Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation, Jalgaon through its Chief Engineer .. Petitioner Versus Rama Rupa Naik and another .. Respondents

¶11

2 wp 5099.07

¶12

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5103 OF 2007

¶13

Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation, Jalgaon through its Chief Engineer .. Petitioner Versus Dagadu Mohan Pawar and another .. Respondents

¶14

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5104 OF 2007

¶15

Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation, Jalgaon through its Chief Engineer .. Petitioner Versus Bharmal Mohan Pawar and another .. Respondents

¶16

Shri Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner in all matters.

¶17

Shri A. B. Kale, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 in all matters.

¶18

Shri S. M. Ganachari, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 2 in all matters.

¶19

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND K. K. SONAWANE, JJ. DATE : 16TH JUNE, 2016.

¶20

PER COURT :

¶21

. We have heard Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Present writ petitions are filed on the premise that in proceedings U/Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the present petitioner and acquiring body was not made party.

¶22

3 wp 5099.07

¶23

The learned Assistant Government Pleader states that, against the award passed by the Reference Court, State has already filed appeals and the same are pending.

¶24

As appeals are already filed against the award passed by the Reference Court, the present petitioner can make appropriate applications in the said pending appeals.

¶25

The writ petitions as such are disposed of with aforesaid observations. It is made clear that, we have not considered other merits of contentions of respective parties. No costs. Rule discharged.

¶26

[ K. K. SONAWANE, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶27

bsb/June 16

Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation Jalgaon v. Rama Rupa Naik

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation Jalgaon v. Rama Rupa Naik

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

Pandit Hula Mali and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kashibai Apparao Patil Lrs Jeewan Panditrao Patil Vs Panditrao Pole

Panlot Samitee, Varsus the State of Maharashtra and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Santosh Magasvargiya Grahak Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation Jalgaon Vs Dagdu Mohan Pawar

Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation Jalgaon Vs Pandu Mohan Pawar