Disposed

M/S. Geetanjali Services , through Its Proprietress Sau. Suvarna Eknath Sakore v. the State of Maharashtra, through the Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Dec 2018WP/11359/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay disposed of two writ petitions filed by legal heirs of Kaluram Narayan Pachpute against the State of Maharashtra, clarifying that the court did not address other prayers made by the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Petitions disposed of; parties at liberty to resort to appropriate remedy.

M/S. Geetanjali Services , through Its Proprietress Sau. Suvarna Eknath Sakore Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the Govt. Pleader and Ors. — Bombay HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1/3 17wp11358.17-11359.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 11358 of 2017 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11359 of 2017

¶4

Kaluram Narayan Pachpute deceased through legal heirs Smt. Sangeeta Kaluram Pachpute & ors. ….Petitioners

¶5

v/s.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & ors. ….Respondents

¶7

Mr.Sanjiv Sawant a/w.Abhishek Deshmukh for petitioner in both petitions.

¶8

Ms. Nisha Mehra, AGP for respondents 1 to 4 in both petitions.

¶9

Ms.J. Pandey i/b. A.R.Bhole & co. for respondents 5 & 6 in both petitions.

¶10

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL, C.J. & M.S. KARNIK, J.

¶11

21^st December, 2018.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

The learned Counsel appearing for petitioners submits that in

¶14

view of the statement made in affidavit-in-reply on behalf of

¶15

2/3 17wp11358.17-11359.doc

¶16

respondents 1 to 4 in paragraph-4, petitions be disposed of. Paragraph-4 of the affidavit-in-reply reads as under:-

¶17

“4. I say and submit that the Respondent No.2 considered the application of Respondent No.7 regarding deletion of the acquired land of 0.91.5 & thereafter a letter bearing No.IDC/2015/PK/609/U-14 dated 25.4.2016 giving permission for deleting the said acquired area of 0.91.5 from acquisition was issued. Subsequent to the letter dated 25.4.2016 from the industries department, further clarification was received from MIDC and additional issues were inturn raised by the Industries Department. Due to protracted correspondence, no notification cancelling land acquisition ever came to be issued from Government.”

¶18

The Counsel appearing for petitioners submits that petitioners reserves their right to resort to appropriate remedy as permissible in law. Both Petitions stand disposed of.

¶19

3/3 17wp11358.17-11359.doc

¶20

Both parties are at liberty to resort to appropriate remedy as

¶21

permissible in law consequent to disposal of this petition, in case any cause of action arises.

¶22

It is clarified that this Court has not addressed any other prayer

¶23

made by the petitioner.

¶24

M.S.KARNIK, J CHIEF JUSTICE

¶25

L.S. Panjwani, P.S.

M/S. Geetanjali Services , through Its Proprietress Sau. Suvarna Eknath Sakore v. the State of Maharashtra, through the Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Geetanjali Services , through Its Proprietress Sau. Suvarna Eknath Sakore v. the State of Maharashtra, through the Govt. Pleader and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohidas Chandar Dhamale and Anr. Vs the City and Industril Development Corpo Mah. and Ors.

Shri. Mahesh Mukund Chaudhari Vs Ministry of Enviroment and Forsests and Ors.

Shri. Prashant Pitambar Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ramchandra Nilkanth Sakhwalkar and Ors. Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer-v, Krushna -Dhom Project, Satara and Ors.

Bhausso Alias Shamrao Yashwantrao Barvekar Vs the Collector (Rehabilitation), District Rehabilitation Office and Ors.

Ramchandra Nilkanth Sakhwalkar and Ors. Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer-v, Krushna -Dhom Project, Satara and Ors.