Disposed

Baban Bambhaji Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Dec 2018WP/2230/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court directed the Collector Pune to call for records, hear parties, and pass a reasoned order on the petitioner's dispute regarding land valuation under the Gujnawani Project within three months, maintaining the status quo until the decision is taken.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Collector Pune to call for record, hear parties, and pass a reasoned order within 3 months.

Baban Bambhaji Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

wp 2230.15.doc

¶2

Urmila Ingale

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2230 OF 2015

¶6

Baban Bambhaji Pawar .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents

¶7

Mr.Harinder Toor a/w Ms.Swati Sawant I/b S.K. Legal Associates, for the Petitioner. Mr.A.I. Patel, AGP for State.

¶8

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

¶9

DATE : 10^th DECEMBER, 2018

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in

¶12

the year 1999 his land was acquired under Pune Irrigation

¶13

Project viz.Gujnawani Project. Under the scheme, the Petitioner

¶14

was to get land in benefited zone. The Petitioner was constrained to approach this Court for allotment. Pursuant to

¶15

an order of this Court, the Petitioner was allotted land by an order dated 15/07/2011. The Petitioner now disputes valuation

¶16

1/3

¶17

wp 2230.15.doc

¶18

carried out in respect of such land. Learned Counsel submits that the Respondents have mentioned incorrect valuation of the land in the allotment order. The Petitioner is not in a position to deposit such a huge amount. The Petitioner is fighting litigation since last several years on such a short issue. The Petitioner pursued the matter with the Respondents. The Respondent No.1 had directed Respondent No.2 to take necessary action.

¶19

We have perused the communication made by the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation), Pune dated 05/10/2012 to the SDO, Bhor. Perused the record placed before us. The Deputy Collector has referred to a valuation report dated 02/06/2012 from the office of the Sub-Registrar Maval. The SDO Bhor was called upon to arrive at an appropriate decision considering all these aspects.

¶20

In the facts, we find it appropriate to direct Collector Pune to call for record, hear necessary parties and pass a brief reasoned order in respect of the claim of the contesting parties

¶21

2/3

¶22

wp 2230.15.doc

¶23

within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. All issues are kept open.

¶24

For a period of 3 months or till a decision is taken by

¶25

the Collector the status- quo granted by this Court will continue to operate.

¶26

5. Writ Petitioner is disposed of.

¶27

(M.S.KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶28

3/3

Baban Bambhaji Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baban Bambhaji Pawar v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Mr. Badshah Husain Shaikh and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Govind Krishna Shelar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary and Ors.

Huhtamaki Ppl Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Environment Dept. and Ors.

Mohammad Sadiq Sheikh Father of Late Mohsin Sheikh Vs State of Maharashtra through the Collector District Pune and Ors.

Dhanesh Champalal Gandhi Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mohammad Sadiq Sheikh Father of Late Mohsin Sheikh Vs State of Maharashtra through the Collector District Pune and Ors.