Disposed

Rajesh Uttam Narawade and Anr. v. Shri. Sopan Maruti Umap and Ors.

Bombay HC2 May 2018RPW/43/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court adjourned the review application concerning the lapse of acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 sine die. The Court directed the matter to await the decision of a Constitution Bench scheduled to hear the interpretation of section 24 of the Act.

What did the court decide?

Review petition adjourned sine die with liberty to apply upon availability of Constitution Bench decision.

Rajesh Uttam Narawade and Anr. vs Shri. Sopan Maruti Umap… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 / 5 05CAO11618@RPWST338313.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.116 OF 2018 IN

¶4

REVIEW PETITION NO.3383 OF 2018

¶5

WITH REVIEW PETITION NO.3383 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION NO.13512 OF 2016

¶6

Rajendra Uttam Narawade & Anr. .... Applicants

¶7

versus

¶8

Sopan Maruti Umap & Ors.

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

Mr. Y.B. Lengare, Advocate for the Applicants/Original Petitioners.

¶11

CORAM : R. M. SAVANT & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE : 02^nd MAY, 2018.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

By the above Review Petition, review is sought of the Judgment and Order dated 03/10/2017 passed by a Division Bench of this Court comprising of Dr.Manjula Chellur, the Hon'ble the Chief Justice (as Her Ladyship then was) and N.M. Jamdar, J. By the said Judgment and Order, the acquisition

¶14

Nesarikar

¶15

2 / 5 05CAO11618@RPWST338313.odt

¶16

proceedings which were a subject matter of the above Writ Petition No.13512/16 were held to be lapsed in respect of the lands in question by virtue of section 24(2) of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short 'Act of 2013').

¶17

Review is sought in view of the judgments of the Apex Court in Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki and others, reported in AIR 2016 SC 4275 and Delhi Development Authority Vs. Sukhbir Singh and Ors. reported in 2014 (4) Mh.L.J. 566 , as also the judgment of the Apex Court in Antevorta Developers Private Limited Vs. Private The Principal Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra being Civil Appeal No.8593/17 . The learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Indore Development Authority Vs. Shailendra (dead) through LRs and Ors. reported in 2018 SCC online SC 100.

¶18

3 / 5 05CAO11618@RPWST338313.odt

¶19

The threeJudge Bench of the Apex Court thereafter in

¶20

SLP (C) CC No.8453/17 State of Haryana Vs. G.D. Goenka , expressed a view that having regard to what was held in Indore Development Authority it would have to be considered whether a reference is required to be made to a larger Bench. The three Judge Bench of the Apex Court further observed that the High Courts be requested not to deal with any cases relating to the interpretation of or concerning section 24 of the Act of 2013. The said order was directed to be communicated to the Registrar Generals of every High Court.

¶21

The threeJudge Bench also observed that the concerned Benches of the Apex Court dealing with similar matters, would defer the hearing until the decision is rendered one way or the other on the issue whether the matter should be referred to a larger Bench or not. It is having regard to the orders passed by the various Benches of the Apex Court having different strengths that the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India, deemed it appropriate to constitute a Constitution Bench to deal

¶22

4 / 5 05CAO11618@RPWST338313.odt

¶23

with all the issues in an apposite manner, that is how the matter was placed before the Constitution Bench. The Constitution Bench has in its order dated 06/03/2018 has directed that the said matters involving the interpretation of Section 24 of the Act of 2013, be listed after the conclusion of hearing in Writ Petition No.76/16.

¶24

The order passed by the Constitution Bench dated 06/03/2018 has been submitted for our perusal. In the said order the orders passed by the threeJudge Bench in Indore Development Authority Vs. Shailendra (dead) through LRs and Ors. reported in 2018 SCC online SC 100 , State of Haryana Vs. G.D. Goenka , and twoJudge Bench orders passed in Indore Development Authority and Etc. & Anr. Vs. Shyam Verma and Ors. Etc. & Ors., in SLP (C) No.9798/16 and State of Haryana Vs. Maharana Pratap Charitable Trust (Regd.) & Anr. in C.A. No.4835/15 , have been referred to by the Constitution Bench.

¶25

5 / 5 05CAO11618@RPWST338313.odt

¶26

As indicated above, the Petitioner is seeking the review of the Judgment and Order dated 03/10/2017 passed by a Division Bench of this Court. A review of the said order would entail an interpretation of Section 24 of the Act of 2013 and the Judgments of the Apex Court, in that regard, would have to be considered. In view of the fact that the issue has now been referred to a larger Bench as a consequence of which, a Constitution Bench has been constituted to deal with the said issue and having regard to the observations of the threeJudge Bench in the State of Haryana Vs. G.D. Goenka, (supra), we restrain ourselves from passing any order in the above Review Petition, until the issue is decided by the Constitution Bench. We therefore cannot accede to the request of the learned Counsel for the Review Petitioner for making any protem arrangement, pending the consideration of the above Review Petition. We accordingly adjourn the matter sinedie with liberty to the Petitioner to apply in the event the decision of the Constitution Bench becomes available.

¶27

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (R. M. SAVANT, J.)

Rajesh Uttam Narawade and Anr. v. Shri. Sopan Maruti Umap and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Uttam Narawade and Anr. v. Shri. Sopan Maruti Umap and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Service Tax vs M/S. Hiranandani Construction Pvt.Ltd.

Cherylanne Dsouza and Anr. vs Glory Immaculate Dsylva and Others

Manish Commercial Premises Co.Op Society Limited vs Manish Estates Private Limited and 2 Ors.

Mr. Ravikiran Dattu Kalgutkar and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Collector of Pune and Ors.