Allowed

Shri. Madhukar Shankarlal Jajal v. the Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Jul 2018WP/5942/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking direction to release land from acquisition and set aside mutation. Court directed the Collector to decide the pending application for deletion of land from acquisition within four months, disposing of the petition without merits.

What did the court decide?

Collector directed to decide petitioner's application dated 08.03.2016 excluding land from acquisition within four months.

Shri. Madhukar Shankarlal Jajal Vs the Collector, Kolhapur… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(43)wp-5942-2016.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.5942 OF 2016

¶4

Madhukar Shankarlal Jajal ..Petitioner. vs. The Collector,Kolhapur & Ors. ..Respondents

¶5

Mr. Uday Nighot, for the Petitioner. Mrs.Pushpalata Diwan, A.G.P. for Respondents.

¶6

CORAM : K. K. TATED, & B.P.COLABAWALLA, JJ.

¶7

DATE : 12TH JULY, 2018

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶10

2 By this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is seeking direction to release their 27 Acres land from Survey No.17/6 situated at Kagal, Taluka Kagal, District Kolhapur from acquisition proceeding and set aside the mutation entry no.6404.

¶11

3 Petitioner also seeks declaration that action taken by

¶12

rkmore 1/3

¶13

(43)wp-5942-2016.odt

¶14

Respondent no.2 to show the name of Respondent No.3 as owner of the suit land to the extent of 27 Acres out of Survey No.17/6 is illegal.

¶15

4 During the course of the argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that they have already made application dated 08.03.2016 to the Respondent No.2 for taking appropriate steps to transfer the said land in their name by deleting from acquisition proceeding. He submits that the said application is pending for hearing on its own merits before Respondent No.2. He submits that he received instruction from his client that if Respondent No.2 is directed to decide their application dated 08.03.2016 as early as possible, they do not want to press the remaining prayers.

¶16

5 Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and as application filed by the petitioner on 08.03.2016 (Exhibit 'J') on page 34 of the petition is pending before Respondent No.2 for hearing and final disposal, we are of the opinion that petition can be disposed of without going into the merits of the matter, directing Respondents to decide the petitioner's application as early as possible. Hence, following order is passed :

¶17

a ) Respondent No.2 is directed to decide petitioner's application dated 08.03.2016 (Exhibit'J') on page 34 to the petition as early as

¶18

rkmore 2/3

¶19

(43)wp-5942-2016.odt

¶20

possible but in any case within four months from the receipt of copy of this order.

¶21

Parties to act on authenticated copy of the order.

¶22

(B.P.COLABAWALLA, J.) (K. K. TATED, J.)

¶23

rkmore 3/3

Shri. Madhukar Shankarlal Jajal v. the Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Madhukar Shankarlal Jajal v. the Collector, Kolhapur 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

Mrs. Reeba Cherian Vs Mr. George Jacob Vengal

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs Smt. Anita Gurudas Kamath and Ors.

Mrs. Reeba Cherian Vs Mr. George Jacob Vengal

Bharat Vishnu Kadam (Since Deceased through Lrs.) and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sukhdeo Vithoba Madane (Since Decd.) through Lrs. Vs State of Maharashtra through Commissioner/Addl. Commissioner and Ors.

Gram Panchayat Shivade, through the Authorised Persons Vs Authorised Officer, Mumbai Nagpur Super Express Highways @ Sub- Divisional Officer and Ors.