Disposed

Vishnu Rajaram Gholap v. the District Collector, Kolhapur Dist. and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Sept 2017WP/9233/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition involves a land acquirer who applied for land allotment under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 after losing land in the Chandoli Sanctuary Project. The Court directed the Respondent authorities to decide the application on merits within three months.

What did the court decide?

Respondent authorities directed to decide the Petitioner's application filed under Section 16 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 within three months.

Vishnu Rajaram Gholap Vs the District Collector, Kolhapur… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

8.wp.9233.17.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.9233 OF 2017

¶4

Vishnu Rajaram Gholap … Petitioner Vs

¶5

The District Collector, Kolhapur District & Ors. ... Respondents

¶6

Mr. Prabhakar M. Jadhav for the Petitioner. Mr. P. G. Sawant, AGP for the State.

¶7

CORAM : DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J. & N. M. JAMDAR, J.

¶8

DATE : SEPTEMBER 20, 2017.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

1 . Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

2 . The Petitioner owned certain lands at Village Nivle, Taluka Shahuwadi, District Kolhapur. The State of Maharashtra decided to acquire the lands for the purpose of Chandoli Sanctuary Project. The lands were so acquired and the Petitioner was awarded compensation. According to the Petitioner, as per Section 16 of the Maharashtra

¶12

Habeeb 1/3

¶13

8.wp.9233.17.doc

¶14

Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999, the Petitioner paid occupancy price and filed an application for allotment of land. It appears that the application has not yet been decided by the Respondent Authorities. Hence, the Petitioner is before us.

¶15

3 . The learned counsel for the Petitioner made a limited prayer that the application filed by the Petitioner be decided within time bound period.

¶16

4 . It is indeed unfortunate that inspite of a machinery provided under the Act of 1999, the land losers such as the Petitioner have to approach this Court only to get their representations decided. The authorities are duty bound to implement the statutory scheme in a timely manner keeping in mind that a person who loses the land also loses a livelihood.

¶17

5 . We therefore, direct the Respondent authorities to decide the application filed by the Petitioner within period of three months from today. The application be decided on its own merits and as per law. With this direction, writ petition is disposed of

¶18

6 . We make it clear that we have not examined the merits of the claims made by the Petitioner in the application.

¶19

Habeeb 2/3

¶20

8.wp.9233.17.doc

¶21

7 . All parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶22

N. M. JAMDAR, J. CHIEF JUSTICE

¶23

Habeeb 3/3

Vishnu Rajaram Gholap v. the District Collector, Kolhapur Dist. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Rajaram Gholap v. the District Collector, Kolhapur Dist. 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

Sitaram Babu Patil (Decd) through Lr Rangrao S. Patil and Ors. Vs the Collector and Deputy Director for Rehabilitation and Ors.

Hotel Tunga Regency Pvt. Ltd. Vs Shri. Sandeep Sharadchandra Thakur

Smt. Parvati Dnyanu Jadhav (Decd) through Lr. Shri. Maruti Jadhav Vs the Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.

Smt. Dhondabai Chandru Patil (Since Decd.) through Lrs. Vs the District Collector, Kolhapur Dist. and Ors.

Smt. Krushnabai Bandu Patil (Since Decd.) through Lrs. Vs the District Collector, Kolhapur Dist. and Ors.

Shankar Rajaram Gholap Vs the District Collector and Ors.