Allowed

Shri Kisan Narayan Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra through General Admn. Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Aug 2016WP/957/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order acquiring land published under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, alleging lapse due to non-possession and non-compensation. The court, relying on Section 24 of the 2013 Act and Supreme Court precedent, allowed the petition, declaring the acquisition lapsed after the State admitted non-occupancy.

What did the court decide?

The acquisition of 80R from Gat No. 1750 (old Gat No. 3220) at village Pal is declared lapsed.

Shri Kisan Narayan Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra through… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

78-wp-957-2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATTE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.957 OF 2016

¶4

Kisan Narayan Pawar ...Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents

¶5

Mr. Prabhanjan Gujar, for the Petitioner Mr. Vikas Mali, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Manoj Patil, for Respondent Nos. 5 to 7.

¶6

CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & MAKARAND KARNIK, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 22, 2016

¶7

P.C.:

¶8

. Parties through their counsel.

¶9

Through this Petition filed under Article 226 of the

¶10

Constitution of India, the Petitioner has prayed for declaring the acquisition of the land i.e. 80R from Gat No. 1750 (old Gat No. 3220) situate at village Pal, Tal. Karad, Dist. Satara in pursuance to the award dated 30^th December, 2000 published under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as lapsed.

¶11

According to the Petitioner, neither the possession of the

1/3

Vishal Parekar

78-wp-957-2016

said land has been taken from the Petitioner nor he has been paid the compensation and therefore the acquisition of land in question stood lapsed. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short “ the Act ”) as also the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Ors., (201) 3 Supreme Court Cases, 183.

¶16

The Respondents have filed reply. After going through para Nos. 15, 17, 18 and 20 of the reply we find that the State Government in its reply affidavit has categorically stated that neither the possession of the land in question was taken from the Petitioner nor the payment was made to the Petitioner. In fact the State has specifically stated that the land may be deleted from the acquisition.

¶17

Keeping in view the reply filed by the State more particularly the statement made in paras mentioned above and Section 24 of the Act as also the law laid down by the Supreme Court

2/3

Vishal Parekar

78-wp-957-2016

in Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), we are of the view that the Petition deserves to be allowed as the acquisition stands lapsed.

¶22

As a result, the Petition is allowed. The acquisition of the land i.e. 80R from Gat No. 1750 (old Gat No. 3220) situate at village Pal, Tal. Karad, Dist. Satara stands lapsed. The consequential action to follow immediately.

¶23

No order as to the costs.

¶24

(MAKARAND KARNIK, J.)

¶25

(SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.)

¶26

3/3

¶27

Vishal Parekar

Shri Kisan Narayan Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra through General Admn. Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Kisan Narayan Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra through General Admn. Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Poddar Vs Centron Industrial Alliance Ltd. and 5 Ors.

Sunil Suman Kaushik Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Arvind Singh Gahlot and 21 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Bindal Mahendra Vala Vs Maharashtra University of Health Sciences and 4 Ors.

Shri. Vicky Prakash Kukreja Vs Sub Divisional Officer, Ulhasnagar and Ors.

Adv. Shital Dayaram Handore and Ors. Vs Vice Chanceloor, University of Pune and Ors.