Allowed

Ganesh Ganapat Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Jul 2018WP/5846/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought directions for payment of long-pending land acquisition compensation. The Court ordered Respondents to prepare and transmit payment proposals within a month, mandate the acquisition department to disburse funds within a month, and ensure verification of heirs for final disbursement within October 2018.

What did the court decide?

Direction to submit compensation proposals within 31 days and disburse award to heirs within 61 days of filing.

Ganesh Ganapat Mhatre Vs State of Maharashtra through Its… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

14.wp.5846.2018.doc

¶2

dik

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5846 OF 2018

¶5

Ganesh Ganapati Mhatre ...Petitioner.

¶6

vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr Chintamani K. Bhangoji with Kamal Gaikwad for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mrs Madhubala Kajale AGP for Respondent Nos.1 & 3. Mr B.B.Sharma for Respondent No.2.

¶9

CORAM : K.K.TATED, & B.P.COLABAWALLA, JJ. JULY 17, 2018.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

Rule. By consent of parties rule made returnable forthwith and by consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2 By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks the direction to Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to pay the compensation for the land bearing Survey No. 160 Hissa No.3 and Survey No.166/1 admeasuring 2.3 gunthas and 22.7 gunthas respectively (Hereinafter referred to as “suit property”) which were acquired by Respondent No.2 (CIDCO) through Respondent No.3 (Land Acquisition Officer).

¶12

3 According to the Petitioner, the suit property belong to the grandfather of the Petitioner, namely, Hira Patil which was subsequently transferred in the name of Smt. Anubai who

¶13

Pg 1 of 4

¶14

14.wp.5846.2018.doc

¶15

is the daughter of deceased Hira Patil. This is evidenced by the 7x12 extract pertaining to the suit property. The Petitioner is the heir of Hira who is his grandfather from the maternal side and the said Hira had three daughters, namely, Anubai, Chandrabhaga @ Chandrabai and Janibai. The petitioner is the son of Janibai. To establish that he is the heir of Hira Patil, the Petitioner has also obtained heir-ship certificate pursuant to an order dated 13^th January, 2016 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panvel and which is annexed at Exh “E” to the Petition. Even according to the petitioner there are also other legal heirs of Hira Patil, namely, Smt. Shakuntala Shantaram Thakur, Smt. Gangabai Dhanaji Mhatre, Smt. Maibai Madhukar Bhoir and Smt. Chandribai/Chandrabai Sadashiv Gharat.

¶16

4 Be that as it may, as far as the suit property is concerned the same was acquired under an award dated 23^rd November, 1985 and the compensation was calculated at Rs.13,774/-. Despite passing of this award as far back as on 23^rd November, 1985 and admittedly possession being taken over by Respondent No.2, no compensation has been paid till date. It is, in these circumstances, that the present Petition has been filed seeking a direction against Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to make payment of the compensation awarded together with interest thereon till payment.

¶17

5 Respondent No.2 – CIDCO has filed an affidavit of reply to this Writ Petition on 13^th July, 2018 wherein they have stated that Respondent No.2 has not yet received the payment proposal from the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Panvel. It is

¶18

Pg 2 of 4

¶19

14.wp.5846.2018.doc

¶20

further stated that as soon as Respondent No.2 receives the same, necessary action to make the payment to the office of the SLAO, Metro Center, Panvel will be taken by Respondent No.2. Across the bar, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 has told before us that this payment would be made by the SLAO within a period of four weeks on them receiving the payment proposal from Respondent No.1.

¶21

6 We find that Respondent No.1 has not filed any affidavit in reply to this Writ Petition.

¶22

7 Considering that the compensation for the suit property has not been paid since 1985 and admittedly the possession of the suit property is with CIDCO, we dispose of this Writ Petition by passing the following order.

¶23

(a) Respondent Nos.1 and 3 are directed to send the payment proposal of compensation to Respondent No.2 on or before 31^st August, 2018;

¶24

(b) On receipt of this payment proposal, Respondent No.2 CIDCO is directed to make payment to the office of Respondent No.3 on or before 6^th October, 2018;

¶25

(c) Respondent No.3, on receipt of this payment from CIDCO on verification, shall disburse the compensation to the petitioner along with all the heirs, namely, Smt. Shakuntala Shantaram Thakur, Smt. Gangabai Dhanaji Mhatre, Smt. Maibai Madhukar Bhoir and Smt. Chandribai/

¶26

14.wp.5846.2018.doc

¶27

Chandrabai Sadashiv Gharat.

¶28

(d) It is clarified that if the Petitioner produced before Respondent No.3 any authority to receive the entire compensation on behalf of all the heirs, the same shall be taken into consideration by Respondent No.3 and accordingly disburse the amount;

¶29

(e) This payment by the SLAO to the petitioner and or the other heirs shall be disbursed on or before 31^st October, 2018.

¶30

8 Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. All the parties are directed to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶31

Digitally signed by Dhanappa Dhanappa Irappa Irappa Koshti Koshti Date: 2018.07.20 (B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.) 11:43:55 +0530

¶32

( K.K.TATED, J.)

¶33

Pg 4 of 4

Ganesh Ganapat Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Ganapat Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra.Thr.the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Vs Shri.Gangaram Pavsha Bhoir (DECEASED)THR.LRS.1/1)SMT.RUKHMINI Gangaram Bhoir @Patil and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra.Thr.the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Vs Shri.Gangaram Pavsha Bhoir (DECEASED)THR.LRS.1/1)SMT.RUKHMINI Gangaram Bhoir @Patil and Ors.

Ramchandra Laxman Pardole (Since Decd) through Lrs and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept and Ors.

Baliram Ramji Dhakwal Vs Union of India through Secretary and Ors.

Prakash Vithoba Ubhare Vs the Competent Authority and the Sub Divisional Officer and Ors.

M/S. Eagle Flask Industries Ltd. Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.