Disposed

Shri. Santosh Babu Neharkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Mar 2017WP/3468/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of multiple writ petitions concerning the rejection of applications for alternate land allotment under land acquisition schemes. The Court held that petitions would be disposed of in accordance with a prior order dated February 7, 2017, noting deficiencies in the reply affidavit regarding mandatory statutory notice.

What did the court decide?

All petitions disposed of in terms of the order dated 7th February 2017 passed in Writ Petition No.8988 of 2013.

Shri. Santosh Babu Neharkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1 WP 3468-15 & Others.doc-13

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3468 OF 2015

¶5

Shri Santosh Babu Neharkar. Versus	] …	Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.	] …	Respondents
*ALONG WITH* WRIT PETITION NO.3469	OF 2015
Shri Razzak Hussain Pathan. Versus	] …	Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.	] …	Respondents
*ALONG WITH* WRIT PETITION NO.3470	OF 2015
Smt. Vimlabai Sitaram Neharkar. Versus	] …	Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.	] …	Respondents
*ALONG WITH* WRIT PETITION NO.3471	OF 2015
Smt. Nita Khanderao Bhujbal. Versus	] …	Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.	] …	Respondents
*ALONG WITH* WRIT PETITION NO.3472	OF 2015
Smt. Manabai @ Dwarkabai Gangaram Jadhekar. Versus	] ] …	Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.	] …	Respondents

¶6

URS 1 of 4

¶7

2 WP 3468-15 & Others.doc-13

¶8

ALONG WITH

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.3473 OF 2015

¶10

Shri Gajanan Naguji Durafe. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. *ALONG WITH* WRIT PETITION NO.3474	] ] OF 20	… Petitioner … Respondents 15
Shri Narayan Janaji Durafe. Versus	]	… Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.	]	… Respondents

¶11

ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3475 OF 2015

¶12

Shri Deoram Baburao Durafe.	] … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.	] … Respondents

¶13

ALONG WITH

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO.3476 OF 2015

¶15

Shri Dattatray Gopal Varhadi. Versus	] … Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.	] … Respondents

¶16

ALONG WITH

¶17

WRIT PETITION NO.3477 OF 2015

¶18

Shri Baban @ Babusa Maruti Tajane. Versus	]	… Petitioner
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.	]	… Respondents
URS		2 of 4

¶19

3 WP 3468-15 & Others.doc-13

¶20

ALONG WITH

¶21

WRIT PETITION NO.3478 OF 2015

¶22

Smt. Kantabai Vasant Shinde. ] … Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ] … Respondents

¶23

ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3479 OF 2015

¶24

Shri Satyawan Gajanan Tajane. ] … Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ] … Respondents

¶25

ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO.9353 OF 2016

¶26

Smt. Anjanabai Dulaji Duraphe. ] … Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ] … Respondents

¶27

Mr. Suresh M. Sabrad for Petitioners in all Writ Petitions. Mr. P. G. Sawant, AGP for State in all Writ Petitions.

¶28

CORAM :- DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J., & G. S. KULKARNI, J. DATE :- 16 MARCH 2017

¶29

P. C. :-

¶30

In all petitions, the grievance of the petitioners is, their applications for alternate land came to be rejected on the ground of non-depositing 75% of the compensation determined or received. Though the award of acquisition pertaining to the lands of the

¶31

3 of 4

¶32

URS

¶33

4 WP 3468-15 & Others.doc-13

¶34

petitioners came to be declared in the year 1976, till date, there is no allotment of alternate lands. There is also no denial of receipt of compensation amount.

¶35

From time to time, Government of Maharashtra has come out with schemes for benefit of project affected persons wherein they have to offer or make the land losers aware of the option of seeking alternate land subject to payment of occupancy price amount determined by the policy under the scheme. The very fact that applications for allotment of alternate land came to be rejected on the ground of non-deposit of occupancy price amount, would mean the scheme was applicable to the present petitioners also. However, in the affidavit-in-reply, nowhere the person who has sworn the affidavit i.e. Deputy Collector (Resettlement), has stated issuance of notice required under Section 16 (2) of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 though such ground is raised in the Writ Petition at para 11B by way of amendment. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that all the petitions deserve to be disposed of in terms of order dated 7^th February 2017 passed in Writ Petition No.8988 of 2013. Copy of order dated 7^th February 2017 passed in Writ Petition No.8988 of 2013 be kept in all petitions.

¶36

Accordingly, all the petitions are disposed of.

¶37

(G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

¶38

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶39

4 of 4

¶40

URS

Shri. Santosh Babu Neharkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Santosh Babu Neharkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Anant Narayan Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra through Ministry of Revenue and Ors.

Deepa Anant Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra through Ministry of Revenue and Ors.

Supriya Shriniwas Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra through Ministry of Revenue and Ors.

Shri. Razzaq Hussain Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt. Vimlabai Sitaram Neharkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Smt. Nita Khanderao Bhujbal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.