Allowed

V. I. D. C. through Its Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division No. 2 Akola v. Parashsram Lodu Tayade- Dead through Lrs., Smt. Gangubai P. Tayade and Others

Bombay HC21 Sept 2017CAF/72/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, in a miscellaneous application, allowed the coram party as a necessary applicant who was not heard by the reference court before an award under the Land Acquisition Act could be passed, relying on the Supreme Court's decision that the beneficiary corporation must be a party to such proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant admitted as a necessary party without whose hearing award under Section 18 could not be passed.

V. I. D. C. through Its Executive… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1/3

¶2

2109 FAST 10988-2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

C.A.F. No. 2799/2015 IN FIRST APPEAL ST. No. 10988/2015

¶5

(V.I.D.C. THROUGH ITS EXE. ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION NO.2, AKOLA -vsPARASHRAM LODU TAYADE (DEAD) SMT. GANGUBAI PARASHRAM TAYADE AND OTHERS)

¶6

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶7

Shri Vinay Dahat, counsel for applicant. Shri Amol Darekar, counsel for respondent nos.2 to 9. Ms. T.H. Udeshi, AGP for respondent no.10.

¶8

CORAM: S.B. SHUKRE, J.

¶9

DATE : SEPTEMBER 21, 2017.

¶10

Heard Shri Vinay Dahat, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Darekar, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 9 and Ms. Trupti Udeshi, learned AGP for respondent no.10.

¶11

It is seen that the Corporation was not made a party before the reference court in it's own name. The Corporation is the beneficiary and it is the Corporation which is going to pay the compensation. Therefore, now, as settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation -Vs- Santosh Janba Warghane and another, 2017(4) Mh.L.J.64 , the applicant would be a necessary party, without hearing which, award under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, could not have been passed. Therefore, this application deserves to be allowed and it is allowed accordingly.

¶12

2/3

¶13

2109 FAST 10988-2015

¶14

Leave to file appeal is granted. Application is disposed of.

¶15

C.A.F. No. 72/2016.

¶16

Heard Shri Vinay Dahat, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Darekar, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 9 and Ms. Trupti Udeshi, learned AGP for respondent no.10.

¶17

Learned AGP for respondent no.10 submits that an appropriate order, in this matter, be passed.

¶18

Learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 9 has opposed this application.

¶19

There is also considerable delay. But, the fact remains that this applicant was not a party to the proceedings before the reference court, and therefore, I am of the view that, this circumstance explains the delay, which has caused in the present case. Thus, I find that there is a sufficient cause available in the instant case for condoning the delay.

¶20

Application is hereby allowed. Delay is condoned. Appeal be registered.

¶21

Application is disposed of.

¶22

FIRST APPEAL ST. No. 10988/2015.

¶23

Heard Shri Vinay Dahat, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Darekar, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 9 and Ms. Trupti Udeshi, learned AGP for respondent no.10.

¶24

ADMIT . Call for R and P.

¶25

3/3

¶26

2109 FAST 10988-2015

¶27

C.A.F. No. 73/2016.

¶28

Heard. Appeal is admitted. The entire amount has also been deposited in this Court. Therefore, interim stay granted by this Court on 30/10/2015 is hereby confirmed on same conditions, till final disposal of appeal.

¶29

Application is disposed of.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Yenurkar

V. I. D. C. through Its Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division No. 2 Akola v. Parashsram Lodu Tayade- Dead through Lrs., Smt. Gangubai P. Tayade and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. I. D. C. through Its Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division No. 2 Akola v. Parashsram Lodu Tayade- Dead through Lrs., Smt. Gangubai P. Tayade and Others

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

Smt. Jayashri Wd/O Sanjay Pode and Others Vs Sudhir S/O Ramdas Totare and 2 Others

Superinted Engineer, Tapi Khore Vikas Pathbandhare Mahamandal Jalgaon and Anr. Vs Shriram Tukaram Mahajan, and Others

Superintend Engineer, Tapi Khore Vikas Patbandhare Mahamandal, Jalgaon and Another Vs Tukaram Khandu Chavan, through Legal Herirs Rajendra Tukaram Chavan and Others

V. I. D. C. through Its Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division No. 2 Akola Vs Parashsram Lodu Tayade- Dead through Lrs., Smt. Gangubai P. Tayade and Others

Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Pusad, Yavatmal Vs Panjab Damodhar Gawande and Others

V.I.D.C. Thr. Exe. Engineer Vs Nirmala W/O Babarao Kuradkar and 4 Ors.