The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the LAR Court's decision not to record compromise terms in land acquisition proceedings. The Single Judge held that the impugned order was not perverse, noting that rightful owners would be adjudicated upon in pending LAR proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
919wp2012o180603
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2012 OF 2018
AMBADAS GOVINDA DHOBLE AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Advocate for the Petitioners : Shri Shinde Dhananjay M. AGP for Respondent 1 : Shri S.K.Tambe.
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 08th March, 2018
Per Court :
1 The Petitioners are aggrieved by the following order passed
by the LAR Court on 17.07.2017 :-
"Considering nature of objection raised before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, I do not find any necessity to record the compromise unless determining rights or all the party concern."
2 The learned Advocate for the Petitioners has canvassed in
extenso as to why the compromise terms dated 17.07.2017 in between Ambadas Dhobale, Shaikh Nazir and Smt.Sujan Gadekar should have been accepted by the LAR Court and these parties should have been allowed to share the money mentioned in the compromise terms.
3 The issue is with regard to the acquisition of the land Gat No.108 in the DMIC Project. The LAR No.30/2017 is pending for about a
2 919wp2012o180603
year. RCS No.375/2013 and RCS No.126/2016 have been initiated by Sarsabai Parande against the Respondents. Same are pending. The Trial Court did not appear to be comfortable in sanctioning the compromise in the light of certain disputed issues, as well as, in view of the compensation amount being involved in this matter.
4 I find that, for the present, the LAR Court has pragmatically declined to record the compromise terms keeping in view that the rights of the parties would be adjudicated upon in the LAR proceedings pursuant to which rightful owners would be apportioned the compensation amount.
5 Considering the above, I do not find that the impugned order could be termed as being perverse or erroneous.
6 The Writ Petition being devoid of merit is, therefore, dismissed.
7 At this stage, the learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that the LAR Court may be directed to segregate the claims of the parties into different proceedings.
8 I do not wish to express any opinion on the same as it is a sub-judice matter and the claims of the rival parties are pending before the LAR Court. If such an application is filed by any of the litigating sides, the LAR Court may consider the same on it's own merits.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
kps
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Single Judge could interfere with the LAR Court's pragmatic decision to decline recording compromise terms due to disputed rights and compensation amounts.
Whether the writ petition challenging the non-recording of compromise terms had any merit.
Whether the Court should direct the LAR Court to segregate pending rival claims in the land acquisition proceedings.
AMBADAS GOVINDA DHOBLE
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
