Allowed

Draupadabai Bhanudas Lashkar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC13 Aug 2019WP/10966/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Justice at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad allowed the amendment of writ petitions to include representation applications. The Court directed the District Collector, Jalna, to decide the applications on merits within ten weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions disposed of; Collector ordered to decide representation applications within ten weeks.

Draupadabai Bhanudas Lashkar and Others Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 W.P. 8876/2016+2

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

23. WRIT PETITION NO. 8876 OF 2016 WITH WP/10966/2016 WITH WP/11056/2016

¶4

Gayabai Pandharinath Jagtap and others ...Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Mr. S.V. Nigam, Advocate for petitioners Mr. V.S. Badakh, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondents

¶9

C ORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, AND R. G. AVACHAT, JJ. DATE : 13^th August, 2019

¶10

ORAL ORDER:

¶11

Heard learned Counsel Mr. Nigam for the petitioners in all these three writ petitions, namely, Writ Petitions No. 8876 of 2016, 11056 of 2016 and 10966 of 2016. Though initially it was submitted by Mr. Nigam, learned Counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners, who are occupants over the Gaiyan land for years together and certainly more than five years, could have been granted the benefits of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 in the wake of order dated 18^th

¶12

W.P. 8876/2016+2

¶13

December, 2015 passed by the District Collector, Jalna. Learned Counsel Mr. Nigam orally prayed for amendment to the petition so as to invite our attention to the events occurred post filing the petition. Mr. Nigam, learned Counsel submitted that all these petitioners availing remedy under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999, approached the District Collector, Jalna, by presenting their representation-applications. It is submitted in these representation-applications that these petitioners are carrying out agricultural activities in the said land and this land is only source of their livelihood. It is also submitted before the Collector that there is standing crop in the lands and these lands are proposed for acquisition for the project, namely, Jawaharlal Neharu Port Trust. The representation-applications are submitted to the office of the Collector on 1^st March, 2017. The learned Counsel, thus, orally prays for amendment to the petitions by placing on record the copies of these representations submitted by the petitioners.

¶14

The oral prayer, as such, placing documents on record would not cause prejudice to the other-side. The oral prayer for the amendment is allowed. The petitioners are permitted to place on record copies of these representations in the respective writ petitions during the course of the day.

¶15

Now, as this Court had taken note of the fact that

¶16

3 W.P. 8876/2016+2

¶17

representation-applications are already submitted to the office of the Collector, Jalna, on 1^st March, 2017 inviting attention of the Collector to the facts, namely, these petitioners-applicants are occupying Gairan land for years together, there is standing crop in the field and the land is proposed for acquisition for dry port, in our opinion, the interest of justice can be served by directing respondent No.2 - the Collector, Jalna, to decide these applications as expeditiously as possible and not later than ten weeks from today, needless to state, on the merits of the applications and if the Collector is of the opinion to grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, he may afford such an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

¶18

Needless to state that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Collector, Jalna, they are at liberty to avail appropriate remedy including approaching this Court in challenge to the order passed by the Collector.

¶19

With these directions, the petitions are disposed of.

¶20

( R. G. AVACHAT ) ( PRASANNA B. VARALE ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶21

Madkar

Draupadabai Bhanudas Lashkar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Draupadabai Bhanudas Lashkar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Chandrakant Ramkrishna Burhade Vs Sitaram Kunte and Others

Institute of Para Medical Sciences through Its President Rajesh Kamlakar Karajgaonkar Vs Yashwanatrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University through Its Registrar and Another

Shankarlal Shriram Lohiya Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Navnath Eknath Shekade and Others Vs Shaikh Sameer Rashid and Others

Chandrakant Vyankatrao Patil Secretary Shivchhatrapati Sarvajanik Wachnalaya Latur Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Agahaji Kashinath Wahule and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others