Dismissed

Smt. Mansi Milind Dahiwalkar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC8 Nov 2017WP/9358/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Bombay (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) addressed a writ petition by children seeking payment of land acquisition compensation from the CT Act passage held. They claimed father Rs.10 lakhs compensation but their father was missing father who was declared as dead under law. Father claim no direction sought from. S.R. passing in this. The Court directed the LR to deposit the money in a f

What did the court decide?

Directed the Competent Authority and Special Land Acquisition Officer to deposit the compensation amount in an interest-earning Fixed Deposit in the name of the landowner, Ramesh Savardekar, until he

Smt. Mansi Milind Dahiwalkar and Anr. Vs the State… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2017)

23-wp.9358.2017.doc

1/4

nsc.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.9358 OF 2017

¶6

Mansi Milind Dahiwalkar Maiden Name Dipali Ramesh Savardekar and Anr. ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr.S.V.Pitre, for the Petitioners.

¶8

Mr.Vikas Mali, A.G.P for the Respondent-State

¶9

CORAM : DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J. & M. S. SONAK, J.

¶10

DATE : 8^th NOVEMBER, 2017

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

The petitioners are claiming to be children of one Mr.Ramesh

¶13

Lakshya Savardekar. They are before this Court. Apparently, land bearing Gat Nos.1693/2 and 2579/2, which was held in the joint names of several persons, including Mr.Ramesh Savardekar, came to be acquired by the concerned Authority at Ratnagiri. An award is passed in the name of all of the owners shown in the 7/12 extracts, which are at page nos.11 and 12,

¶14

23-wp.9358.2017.doc

¶15

2/4

¶16

including Mr.Ramesh Savardekar.

¶17

According to the petitioners, the amount of compensation payable to their father is about Rs.10 lakhs. They claim that they are the only legal heirs of Mr.Ramesh Savardekar, since their mother-Surekha Ramesh Savardekar died in an accident about 2 years back.

¶18

So far as existence of Mr.Ramesh Savardekar, there is no legal declaration that he is not alive. Since the missing complaint was given only in the year 2015, there cannot be a declaration, presuming that Mr.Ramesh Savardekar is dead, till 2022. If a person is not heard of for a period of 7 years, then alone there can be a declaration that the said person is presumed to be dead. Till such declaration is taken, whatever the legal heirs of such person could get after his death, may not have the benefit as on today. In all probability, after 2022, if Mr.Ramesh Savardekar is not traced and if there is a legal declaration to the effect that there is a presumption of death of Mr.Ramesh Savardekar, his legal heirs will be entitled to the benefit flowing from the death of the said person. In that view of the matter, at present the amount payable as compensation to said Mr.Ramesh

¶19

23-wp.9358.2017.doc

¶20

3/4

¶21

Savardekar cannot be allowed to be paid to his children, even if they are ready to execute any indemnity bond. We do not even know that the father of the petitioners intended to give the said money to his children or not, if he was to be alive or he was to be available as on today.

¶22

In that view of the matter, we make it clear that the petitioners cannot seek such direction either from this Court or from the Authority who is liable to pay the compensation. At the most, we can direct the said Authority to deposit the said compensation amount in an interest earning Fixed Deposit in the name of Mr.Ramesh Savardekar, till he is traced or till he is declared as dead, in accordance with law.

¶23

In the light of the above observations, we decline to grant permission sought in the writ petition, however, we direct respondent No.2Competent Authority and Special Land Acquisition Officer to deposit the amount of compensation and all other amounts payable to said Mr.Ramesh Savardekar in an interest earning Fixed Deposit in the name of Mr.Ramesh Savardekar, in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank.

¶24

23-wp.9358.2017.doc

¶25

4/4

¶26

With these observations, the petition is disposed of.

¶27

M. S. SONAK, J. CHIEF JUSTICE

Smt. Mansi Milind Dahiwalkar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Mansi Milind Dahiwalkar and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Anil Meghraj Gehi Vs the Superintendent of Stamps

Abdul Rehman Karimulla Shah Vs Rajesh Sripatrao Katkar Sub-Divisional Officer, and 3 Ors.

Anil Meghraj Gehi Vs the Collector and 2 Others

Shri. Rajendra Ramchandra Bade Vs Smt. Jayashri Jaywant Nikam and Ors.

Bhiva Namdeo Borade and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Manojar Laxman Jahdav and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.