Disposed

Rangnath Tulshiram Thoge Died Lrs Babasaheb Rangnath Thoge and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC29 Aug 2017WP/11549/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of writ petitions challenging land acquisition. The court held that the grievance was substantially redressed by the acquiring body's affidavit stating rent is paid for lands in possession until March 2013 and that a proposal would be submitted, leading to consent taking and compensation determination within stipulated timelines.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions are disposed of as the grievance substantially stands redressed by the acquiring body's submissions.

Rangnath Tulshiram Thoge Died Lrs Babasaheb Rangnath Thoge… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

( 1 ) wp11549.16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.11549 OF 2016

¶4

Rangnath Tulshiram Thoge died..Petitioners
Lrs. Babasaheb Rangnath Thoge
and others

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra..Respondents
and others

¶7

Mr.Punit S. Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.S.G.Karlekar, AGP for the respondent/State
Mr.V.C.Solshe, Advocate for respondent No.4

¶8

WITH

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.11579 OF 2016

¶10

Sakhubai Uttamrao Doifode..Petitioners
and others

¶11

Versus

¶12

The State of Maharashtra..Respondents
and others

¶13

Mr.Punit S. Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.A.V.Deshmukh, AGP for the respondent/State
Mr.V.C.Solshe, Advocate for respondent No.4

¶14

WITH

¶15

WRIT PETITION NO.11580 OF 2016

¶16

Laxman Ramnath Ghayal..Petitioners
and others

¶17

( 2 ) wp11549.16

¶18

Versus

¶19

The State of Maharashtra..Respondents
and others

¶20

Mr.Punit S. Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.A.V.Deshmukh, AGP for the respondent/State
Mr.V.C.Solshe, Advocate for respondent No.4

¶21

WITH

¶22

WRIT PETITION NO.11595 OF 2016

¶23

Devidas Tukaram Shejule ..Petitioners
and others

¶24

Versus

¶25

The State of Maharashtra..Respondents
and others

¶26

Mr.Punit S. Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.A.V.Deshmukh, AGP for the respondent/State
Mr.V.C.Solshe, Advocate for respondent No.4

¶27

CORAM : R.M. BORDE &
S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.
DATED :29.08.2017

¶28

P.C. :-

¶29

.The acquiring body has presented an affidavit
and in paragraph No.9 of the reply, it is stated as
below:-

¶30

"9.The respondent No.4 humbly submits
that sanctioning of rent for the acquired lands
is in process. It is further stated that rent

¶31

for the lands taken in possession is paid up to
March 2013 and as per the availability of the
funds, acquisition of lands of owners coming
under Km.11 to 37 total adm. 111.59 hectors
would be acquired either under the new
acquisition act or as per the guidelines issued
by the State Government. The respondent No.4
further humbly submits that after the possession
of the lands canal alignment mark was carried
and very minor dugout work was done for want of
fund and hence must of the lands nature is still
unaffected."

¶32

2.In view of the submissions made in paragraph No.
9 as stated above the grievance raised by the petitioner
in the instant petition substantially stands redressed.

¶33

3.Learned counsel appearing for the respondent
acquiring body states on instructions that appropriate
proposal with the consent of the petitioner would be
submitted to the State Government within a period of six
months from today. If the petitioners or any
agriculturist do not give consent for the rates
prescribed by the acquiring body appropriate proceedings
would be taken up under the provisions of the Act of
2013. After presentation of the proposal to the Collector
as stated by the learned AGP, appropriate decision would
be taken within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of proposal and thereafter within a period of
four months the amount of compensation determined by the

¶34

Authorities would be paid to the land owners.

¶35

4.In view of the statement made as above, the writ
petition stands disposed of.

¶36

VishalK/ wp11549.16

Rangnath Tulshiram Thoge Died Lrs Babasaheb Rangnath Thoge and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rangnath Tulshiram Thoge Died Lrs Babasaheb Rangnath Thoge and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Prajakata Appa Nandedkar through Natural Guardian Appa Sitaram Nandedkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sarthak Khanderao Mandewad Vs Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik and Others

Kamalbai Srumant Savant and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Suresh Shatrughan Bansode Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

M/S Maharashtra Shetkari Sugars Ltd. Factory Shri Uttam Nagar Beed and Others Vs Punjab National Bank Mumbai and Others

Tupkar Ravikumar Dnyanoba Vs the State Election Commission through Its Commissioner Mumbai and Others