Disposed

Vijaykumar Babasaheb Veer v. the Union of India and Others

Bombay HC30 Sept 2016WP/7596/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners contended that compensation for land acquired for National Highway No. 211 was determined under the 1894 Act despite the declaration in 2015. The Court ordered the acquiring body to determine compensation under the 2013 Act within three months and pay any differential amount.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No. 3 to determine compensation under Act of 2013 within three months; payment of differential amount after determination.

Vijaykumar Babasaheb Veer Vs the Union of India and Others — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 WP-7596-16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 7596 OF 2016

¶4

Vijaykumar Babasaheb Veer ...PETITIONER versus Union of India Through its Secretary and others ...RESPONDENTS

¶5

Mr. Ramraje A. Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. S.B. Deshpande, ASG for respondent No. 1 Mr. D.S. Manorkar, Advocate holding for Mr. M.N. Kini, Advocate for respondent No. 2 Mr. S.S. Dande, AGP for respondents No. 4

¶6

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7598 OF 2016

¶7

Rajshree Balaji Veer ...PETITIONER versus Union of India Through its Secretary and others ...RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr. Ramraje A. Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioner Mr. S.B. Deshpande, ASG for respondent No. 1 Mr. D.S. Manorkar, Advocate for respondent No. 2 Mr. V.M. Kangne, AGP for respondents No. 4

¶9

..... CORAM : R.M. BORDE AND K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.

¶10

DATED : 30^th SEPTEMBER, 2016. Order :-

¶11

The lands belonging to the petitioners have been acquired for construction of National Highway No. 211. The petitioners contend that respondent No. 3 has declared the award on 14-01-2015, however, determination of the amount of compensation under award is in accordance with Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “Act of 1894”). The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

¶12

2 WP-7596-16

¶13

Rehabilitation and Re-settlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 2013”) has been in force w.e.f. 01-01-2014. It was necessary for respondent No. 3 to determine the amount of compensation payable to petitioners under Act of 2013. The determination of the amount of compensation is not in accordance with the Act of 2013, though the award is declared on 14-01-2015.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - National Highways Authority of India has presented affidavit-in-reply. In the affidavit, it is stated that Government of India vide ordinance 03-04-2015 made the provisions of Act 2013 applicable w.e.f. 01-01-2015 in respect of acquisition under the National Highways Act, 1956. It is stated that concerned respondent is ready and willing to pay the amount of compensation in accordance with provisions of first schedule of Act of 2013, after re-determination of the amount of compensation by concerned Land Acquisition Officer.

¶15

In this view of the matter, we direct respondent No. 3 to determine the amount of compensation payable to the petitioner in accordance with provisions of Act of 2013, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from today. Respondent - Acquiring body shall pay differential amount of compensation to the petitioners within a period of three months from the determination of the same by respondent No. 3.

¶16

In view of the above, writ petitions stand disposed of.

¶17

Sd/-

¶18

MTK

Vijaykumar Babasaheb Veer v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijaykumar Babasaheb Veer v. the Union of India 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

Madhuri Vinayak Zirpe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Arvind Sambhaji Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nileshkumar Pruthaviraj Thakur Vs Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nandurbar Thr Member Secretary and Others

Gunwant Govardhan Kate Vs the Union of India and Others

Shams Education Society through Its President Gulam Dastagir Daud Aansari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Rajshree Balaji Veer Vs the Union of India and Others