Dismissed

Akbar Ismail Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra through the Dy. Collector (Acquisition No. 2) Nashik and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Nov 2018WP/9527/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against the State challenging a Deputy Collector's order rejecting an application to be treated as a person interested in land acquisition. The Court dismissed the petition without interference, noting the petitioner has a pending civil suit and an appeal against the rejection of interim relief. No opinion was given on merits. Petition disposed of.

What the court decided

AI extract

Akbar Ismail Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra through the… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

wp 9527.18.doc

¶2

Urmila Ingale

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 9527 OF 2018

¶6

Akbar Ismail Shaikh .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors. .. Respondents

¶7

Mr.Harshad M. Inamdar, for the Petitioner. Ms.Nisha Mehra, AGP for State.

¶8

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

¶9

DATE : 29^th NOVEMBER, 2018

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶12

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the

¶13

Petitioner entered into an agreement for sale of immovable property with the land owners Shri Shreeram Jagannath Dhamane and Shri Pravin Dagadu Nere. This document of unregistered agreement for sale was executed on 05/12/1994.

¶14

The land acquisition proceedings in respect of the

¶15

1/3

¶16

wp 9527.18.doc

¶17

very same land is initiated on 24/08/2017. Consequently, award was passed. The proceedings are going on.

¶18

According to the learned Counsel, in the meanwhile the Petitioner filed an application before the Deputy Collector (Acquisition No.2), Nashik for treating the Petitioner as person interested in respect of the said acquisition proceedings.

¶19

By communication dated 05/02/2018, Deputy

¶20

Collector informed the Petitioner that for the reasons recorded therein his application was not maintainable. The Deputy Collector made a Reference to Special Civil Suit No. 364 of 2017 filed by the Petitioner against the land owner Shri Dhamane. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that said Suit was filed for specific performance of contract. In the said Suit, Application filed for interim relief came to be rejected. Against the said order rejecting interim relief by the trial Court, the Petitioner preferred Appeal which is pending consideration before the District Court.

¶21

2/3

¶22

wp 9527.18.doc

¶23

We have perused the record placed before us.

¶24

Considered the submissions advanced. We notice that the Petitioner has already resorted to the remedy of filing of Suit against the land owners – Respondents No. 2 & 3 and even against the order rejecting the Petitioner's prayer for interim relief, further proceedings by way of filing an Appeal before the District Court are initiated. In this view of the matter, in the facts of the present case, we are not inclined to interfere in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.

¶25

We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the contentions raised in this Petition. Needless to mention that the Petitioner is at a liberty to resort to appropriate proceedings available in law to ventilate his grievance.

¶26

With these observations, the Petition stands disposed

¶27

of.

¶28

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

¶29

3/3

Akbar Ismail Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra through the Dy. Collector (Acquisition No. 2) Nashik and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Akbar Ismail Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra through the Dy. Collector (Acquisition No. 2) Nashik and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Sitaram Kshirsagar Vs the Secretary / Dy. Secretary Adiwasi Vikas Dept. and Ors.

Anil Sambahaji Pharate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Pravin Laxman Mhapralkar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Collector and Ors.

Shri Vishnu D Barve Vs the State Opf Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri Vishnu D Barve Vs the State Opf Maharashtra and Anr.

Babasaheb Mohanrao Aware Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Principal Secretary and Ors.