Dismissed

Rajendra Ganpatrao Ashtekar v. the Union of India and Others

Bombay HC14 Dec 2016WP/8274/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition regarding land acquisition, the High Court of Bombay bench at Aurangabad dismissed the petitioner's claim. The court held that since possession was taken and an award was passed in 1999, and the petitioner did not object to the initial joint measurement, a later 2002 measurement could not validate a fresh claim for excess land.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rajendra Ganpatrao Ashtekar Vs the Union of India and Others — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

16.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

 16 WRIT PETITION NO. 8274 OF 2015

¶4

RAJENDRA GANPATRAO ASHTEKAR

¶5

VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

¶6

...

¶7

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. V. B. Patil h/for Mr. Mahesh
S. Patil

¶8

AGP for Respondent No.2 State: Mrs. V. H. Patil
Advocate for Respondents 1, 3, 4 and 5: Mr. M. N. Navandar

¶9

CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
K. L. WADANE, JJ.
 DATE:14th December, 2016

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

1. Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶12

strenuously contends that the petitioner is owner and

¶13

possessor of 2 H and 72 R land of Gat No.20, situated
at village Baswantpur, Tq. & Dist. Latur. An area of

¶14

2 H 27 R was acquired. When the Measurement was

¶15

carried out by the Land Acquisition Officer, no notice

¶16

was issued to the present petitioner. Compensation is
paid to the petitioner only in respect of 2 H 27 R
land. The learned counsel submits that in the year

¶17

1999, award was passed. The petitioner has carried out

¶18

measurement in the year 2002. As per the said

¶19

measurement report, the respondents have taken in

¶20

their possession 14 R excess land. According to the

¶21

learned counsel, the respondents be directed to take

¶22

1/3

¶23

16.odt

¶24

up acquisition proceedings in respect of 14 R land.
Even notice was issued by the petitioner in the year
2002, however, no action is taken by the respondents
till date.

¶25

2. The learned AGP submits that the possession was
taken by the acquiring body even prior to the passing
of award by private negotiation. The land of the
petitioner under acquisition was 2 H 27 R. Compensation
for the same is also paid as per the award. According

¶26

to the learned AGP, the petitioner had not raised any
objection to the joint measurement at any point of
time.

¶27

3. Mr. Navandar, the learned counsel submits that

¶28

the acquiring body has taken possession of only 2H27
land of the petitioner and the petitioner is paid
compensation of the said land as per the award in the
year 1999.

¶29

4. We have considered the submissions.

¶30

5. As per the award passed on 21.01.1999, 2 H 27 R
land of the petitioner was acquired. It is not disputed
that the petitioner has been paid compensation for the
said land. The award also states that the Acquiring

¶31

2/3

¶32

16.odt

¶33

Body has taken possession of the property, acquired by
private negotiation, prior to the passing of the award
itself. It also states of joint measurement being
carried out. No objection appears to have been raised
to the joint measurement carried out prior to the
acquisition. Objection of the petitioner now cannot be
considered only on the basis of measurement carried out
by the petitioner in the year 2002.

¶34

6. Considering the above, no case is made out. Writ
petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶35

(K. L. WADANE, J.) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. )

¶36

JPC

¶37

3/3

Rajendra Ganpatrao Ashtekar v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rajendra Ganpatrao Ashtekar v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sushilabai Sopan Rathod Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Jawaharlal Nehru Engineering College, Aurangabad Vs All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi and Others

Sandip Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Nashik Vs All India Council for Technical Education, New Delhi and Another

Ramesh Asaram Jadhav and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mahendra Kanhaiyalal Jain Vs the Municipal Corporation, Jalgaon and Others

Muniraj Kaknaji Kshirsagar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others