Single judge observed that the acquiring body cannot claim identical interest with the State Government. Held that Advocate representing acquiring body cannot represent the State. Applications for transposition rejected.
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.
(Order) (1) C.A. No. 01404 of 2016
& Group
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.
914 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1404 OF 2016 IN FAST/4558/2015 WITH CA/1394/2016 IN FAST/4377/2015 WITH CA/1398/2016 IN FAST/4554/2015 WITH CA/1396/2016 IN FAST/4562/2015 WITH CA/1403/2016 IN FAST/4566/2015 WITH CA/1401/2016 IN FAST/4570/2015 WITH
CA/1400/2016 IN FAST/4574/2015 WITH CA/1397/2016 IN FAST/4578/2015 WITH CA/1405/2016 IN FAST/4582/2015 WITH CA/1402/2016 IN FAST/4586/2015 WITH CA/1393/2016 IN FAST/4590/2015
GODAVARI MARATHWADA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, AURANGABAD, THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, LATUR
VERSUS
SHIVRAJ VITTHAL BANDEWAD AND ANOTHER
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. R.D. Biradar Advocate for Respondents viz. claimants : Mr. Eknath Irale Patil AGP for Respondent viz. State : Mr. R.B. Bagul
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.
DATE : 04TH SEPTEMBER 2019
ORAL ORDER:
01.By the present applications, the applicant
- acquiring body is seeking transposition of the
non-applicant viz. State of Maharashtra as co-
appellant in the first appeals.
02.Learned Advocate for the appellant -
applicant is not showing any provision in respect
of transposition of the State of Maharashtra as co-
(Order) (2) C.A. No. 01404 of 2016
& Group
appellant in the first appeals.
03.Learned Advocate appearing for the
applicant - acquiring body has tried to rely on the
notification issued by some Deputy Secretary of the
State Government. However, it is to be noted that
the interest of the acquiring body cannot be said
to be similar that of State though the acquisition
might have been made and the steps were taken by
the State for the purpose of project which has then
been handed over to the Corporation. The
Corporation has been established under the
provisions of an Act and therefore, as per the
object for which the Corporation was established by
separating it from the Government, it cannot be
stated that now the interest of the State is
equivalent to the Government. Learned Advocate
appearing for the applicant / appellant - acquiring
body is not Government Pleader/Assistant Government
Pleader and therefore, he cannot represent the
State to whom he seeks to add as co-appellant.
Under such circumstance, there is no merit in the
applications for transposition.
04.Further, the State has been made respondent
in the appeals; it cannot be stated that the
appeals have been instituted by a wrong appellant
taking into consideration the fact that the
(Order) (3) C.A. No. 01404 of 2016 & Group concerned authority of the appellant was a party before the reference Court. Under such circumstance, the applications are hereby rejected.
( Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi )
JUDGE
...........
puranik / CA1404.16etc
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the interest of State of Maharashtra can be equated to the acquiring body Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation for transposition as co-appellant.
Whether the learned Advocate representing the acquiring body can represent the State of Maharashtra to whom the appellant seeks to add as co-appellant.
GODAVARI MARATHWADA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION THROUGH ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION LATUR
SHIVRAJ VITTHAL BANDEWAD
VIBHA KANKANWADI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court