Disposed

Ashok Narsingrao Salunke v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Dec 2017WP/7352/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an acquisition award citing low compensation and sought lease concession for a shop in a temple complex. The Court rejected quashing, allowed a challenge to the award amount, and directed the authorities to consider the petitioner's representation regarding similar concessions granted to others within four months.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file representation within four months; authorities to decide conformity with norms and treatment of similarly situated persons.

Ashok Narsingrao Salunke Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

1 WP 7352-2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.7352 OF 2012

¶4

Ashok Narsingrao Salunke, Age 60 years, Occupation Retired, R/o Tuljapur Tq. Tuljapur District Osmanabad. ...Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary Urban Development Department Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶7

1. The Tuljapur Development Authority (A body constituted as per Tuljapur Development Authority Act, 2008) Through the Member Secretary District Planning Officer Osmanabad Tq. Dist. Osmanabad.

¶8

1. Shri. Tuljabhavani Temple Trust Tuljapur Through its President i.e. Collector, Osmanabad.

¶9

1. The Sub Divisional Officer Osmanabad Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad. ...Respondents

¶10

Mr. S. V. Natu, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S. B. Yawalkar, AGP for respondent No.1 and 4/ State Mr. S. T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶11

2 WP 7352-2012

¶12

CORAM : R. M. BORDE & SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI. JJ. DATE : 13-12-2017

¶13

PER COURT :

¶14

The petitioner is praying for issuance of order for quashment of award dated 27-03-2012 declared by the Collector, Osmanabad in connection with the property CTS No.1968 admeasuring 39 square meter or in the alternative is seeking directions to respondents No.2 and 3 to allow one shop in the shopping complex of Shri Tuljabhavani Mandir Trust, Tuljapur on lease for 99 years. It is the contention of the petitioner that, shop premises belonging to him has been acquired by the respondent/ State for development of Tuljabhavani Temple, Tuljapur in observance of the procedure prescribed under Tuljapur Development Authority Act, 2008. The award has been declared by offering meager compensation amount to the petitioner.

¶15

It would be open for the petitioner to challenge the award declared by the State and claim enhanced amount. Apart form this, if the petitioner is desirous of acquiring a shop premises on lease basis and seeks any concession in that regard, it would be open for the petitioner to tender an application/ representation to the Collector. It

¶16

3 WP 7352-2012

¶17

is contention of the petitioner that, in case of similarly situate shop holder by name Balasaheb Vishwanath Shinde, request made by him has been forwarded by Collector.

¶18

In the circumstances, it would be open for the petitioner to tender a request to the Collector. If the petitioner tenders appropriate application/ representation to the respondents No.2 and 3 within a period of four months from today, the respondents No.2 and 3 may take appropriate decision in accordance with and norms prescribed by the Trust expeditiously.

¶19

With directions as above, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶20

[SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] [R. M. BORDE] JUDGE JUDGE

¶21

vjg/-.

Ashok Narsingrao Salunke v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Narsingrao Salunke v. the State of Mah 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

Subhash Ramdhan Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bhausaheb Mhatarba Zalte Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ganesh Bhaskarrao Patil Vs the Zilla Parishad Jalgaon through Its Chief Executive Officer and Another

Narayan Dhanaji Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The Union of India and Others Vs Prakash Bhagaji Wani and Others

The Union of India and Others Vs Amit Rajendra Dongre and Another