Disposed

Gangadhar @ Achyut Sambhu Gutal v. District Resettlement Officer, Pune and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Apr 2017WP/4441/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner complained of non-allotment of alternate land despite paying compensation under land acquisition for Ujani Project. Court directed Rehabilitation Officer to treat the petition as representation and dispose of it within three months.

What did the court decide?

Directive to treat Writ Petition as representation and dispose of within three months.

Gangadhar @ Achyut Sambhu Gutal Vs District Resettlement… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1 WPL 1934-17.doc-9

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO.1934 OF 2017

¶5

Gangadhar @ Achyut Sambhu Gutal ] Through constituted POA ] Shri Chandrakant Murlidhar Randive. ] … Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

District Resettlement Officer, Pune ] & Ors. ] … Respondents

¶8

Mr. I. M. Khairadi for Petitioner. Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP for State.

¶9

CORAM :- DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J., & G. S. KULKARNI, J. DATE :- 5 APRIL 2017

¶10

P. C. :-

¶11

The petitioner, through his Power of Attorney, is before this Court pertaining to lands admeasuring 1H 78R in Gat No.41/4//B at Village – Takali, Taluka – Indapur, District - Pune. According to the petitioner, the land was acquired for Ujani Project and he has lost possession of the land way back in 1969 to 1970. According to him, he has already deposited amount which is required to be deposited for allotment of alternate land which was received as compensation but still the authorities are not allotting any alternate land. According to

1 of 2

URS

2 WPL 1934-17.doc-9

the petitioner, on demand, he has deposited the amount but till date nothing has happened in spite of identifying alternate land. The land in question was taken away in 1969 and we are in 2017. Till date, the petitioner is neither benefited by the amount of compensation he received nor got alternate land. This cannot be the state of land losers or project affected persons. In similar matters pertaining to Dhom Irrigation Project in Writ Petition No.6915 of 2016 and connected matters, we disposed of the matters directing the Rehabilitation Officer to treat each of the Writ Petitions as representations and on due consideration of the grievances of the petitioners, consider and dispose of Writ Petitions in accordance with law. In this matter also, we direct the Rehabilitation Officer concerned to treat the Writ Petition as representation and dispose of the same within a period of three months from today, according to the procedure contemplated.

¶16

Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶17

(G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

¶18

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶19

2 of 2

¶20

URS

Gangadhar @ Achyut Sambhu Gutal v. District Resettlement Officer, Pune and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangadhar @ Achyut Sambhu Gutal v. District Resettlement Officer, Pune 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

Shri. Arvind Amrutlal Harsora and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Revenue and Rehabilitation Dept. and Ors.

Rajendra Harikishan Dhawan and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, through Public Works Dept and Ors.

Shri. Subhash Abaji Gite Vs the Special Land, Acquisition Officer, Jal Vidyut Project, Nashik and Ors.

Shri Sonu Hari More (Decd) through Lrs. Chokhu S. More Vs District Resettlement Officer, Satara and Ors.

Shri. Narayan Kondiba Dhanavde (Lrs.) Shri Dondiba Laxman Dhanavade Vs District Resettlement Officer, Pune and Ors.

Shri Narayan Govind Jadhav Vs District Resettlement Officer, Pune and Ors.