Dismissed

Ab Wahab Haji Abdul Reheman, Lrs Gulam Ahmad Wahab and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC11 Sept 2018CA/7267/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad dismissed a review application filed by land purchasers challenging a 2014 order that denied their claim regarding land acquired for a highway. The Court held that no error appeared on the face of the record as the State had obtained the original owner's consent for acquisition before the dispute arose. The review petition was rejected wi

What did the court decide?

The review application was dismissed with no costs awarded to the petitioner.

Ab Wahab Haji Abdul Reheman, Lrs Gulam Ahmad Wahab and… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

( 1 )

¶2

ca7267.15

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7267 OF 2015
IN RAST/10869/2015

¶5

AB WAHAB HAJI ABDUL REHEMAN, LRS GULAM AHMAD WAHAB AND

¶6

OTHERS
VERSUS

¶7

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶8

Mr.S.K.Adkine, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.P.Sonpawale, AGP for the respondent/State.

¶9

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA &
S.M.GAVHANE,JJ.
DATED :11.09.2018

¶10

P.C. :-

¶11

Mr.Adkine, learned counsel submits that, at the
time when this Court dismissed the Writ Petition under
order dated 23.04.2014, the petitioner was not in
possession of the measurement map. The measurement was
carried out in the year 2007. In the measurement map, it
clearly shows that 2000 sq.meters area is affected under
the road. This Court dismissed the Writ Petition on the
ground that there is no measurement on record. As the
measurement now is on record, this Court can consider
the aspect of the land being affected to the extent of
2000 sq.meters in the road. According to the learned
counsel this is an error apparent on face on record.

¶12

2.We have heard the learned AGP.

¶13

3.The petitioners are the purchasers of the land

¶14

in the year 1968. The State had filed an affidavit
stating that the highway has been notified in the year
1967 and the land was acquired with the consent of the
original owners.

¶15

4.We had under order dated 23.04.2014 in Writ
Petition No.2063 of 2006 observed that we would not
embark upon investigation of disputed questions of fact.
The affidavit filed by the respondent State specifically
states that the highway was constructed and the area
taken in its possession with the consent of the original
owner. The highway was declared in the year 1967. The
petitioner is a subsequent purchaser of the land.

¶16

5.Considering the above there is no error
apparent on face of record. The review as such is
dismissed. No costs.

¶17

 [S.M.GAVHANE,J.] [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J.]

¶18

ssp/Sept. 18/ ca7267.15

Ab Wahab Haji Abdul Reheman, Lrs Gulam Ahmad Wahab and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ab Wahab Haji Abdul Reheman, Lrs Gulam Ahmad Wahab and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Adarsh Jeevan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Its Secretary and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Madhukar Dattatray Petkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vimal Sopan Mudgudkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jagdishchandra Shankarlal Sharma and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anothers

Dnyaneshwar Dattatraya Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shashikala Pitambar Firke Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others