Allowed

Bhika Laxman Solankar through Lrs Laxman Bhika Solankar through Lrs Shripad Laxman Solankar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC5 Feb 2019WP/1278/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, claiming ownership of agricultural land, approached the High Court alleging delay in deciding their land acquisition application. The Court directed authorities to decide the application within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directions to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to decide the pending application within eight weeks.

Bhika Laxman Solankar through Lrs Laxman Bhika Solankar… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1278.19wp

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1278 OF 2019

¶5

1. Bhika s/o Laxman Solankar-Died Through his L.R's.

¶6

1/A. Laxman s/o Bhika Solankar-Died, Through his L.Rs.

¶7

1/A/i) Shripad s/o Laxman Solankar, Aged 35 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. Kanchanwadi, Tq. and Aurangabad.

¶8

1/A/ii) Keshav s/o Laxman Solankar, Age: 33 years, Occ: And R/o. As above.

¶9

1/A/iii) Deepak s/o Laxman Solankar, Age: 30 years, Occ: And As above.

¶10

1/A/iv) Sandeep s/o Laxman Soankar, Age: 27 years, Occ: And As above.

¶11

2. Bhaurao s/o Bhika Solankar, Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶12

2(i) Sheshrao s/o Bhaurao Solankar (Died) Issueless.

¶13

2(ii) Yogesh s/o Bhaurao Solankar, Age: 24 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. As above.

¶14

3. Ramesh s/o Bhika Solankar, Age: 51 years, Occ: Service, Age: as above.

¶15

4. Suresh s/o Bhika Solankar,

¶16

1278.19wp

¶17

(2)

¶18

Deceased through his L.Rs.

¶19

4-A)Shivaji s/o Suresh Solankar,
Age: 21 years, Occ: Education,
R/o. as above.

¶20

5)Krishna s/o Bhika Solankar,
Age: 44 years, Occ: Labour,
R/o. as above...PETITIONERS
VERSUS

¶21

1. The State of Maharashtra Through the Collector at Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.

¶22

2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad.

¶23

3. The Managing Director, Water and Land Management Institute, Kanchanwadi, Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad. ..RESPONDENTS

¶24

Mr V.G. Mete, Advocate for petitioners;
Mr K.N. Lokhande, A.G.P. for respondent/State;

¶25

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE
 AND
 S.M.GAVHANE, JJ.
 DATE : 5th FEBRUARY, 2019

¶26

ORAL ORDER :

¶27

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the

¶28

petitioners.

¶29

2.A limited grievance is raised in the

¶30

petition. The petitioner claims to be owner of
certain agricultural lands. Notification under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was

¶31

issued on 29th January, 1982. Award was also
declared and possession was obtained of the said
land are the facts submitted in the petition.

¶32

3.Learned Counsel appearing for the

¶33

petitioners, by inviting our attention to the copy
of the application, submitted before us that the
application is pending before the Collector,
Aurangabad. The petitioner along with application
also placed on record the copy of judgment of this
Court and the Hon'ble the Apex Court.

¶34

4.Though we are not very happy with the

¶35

sequence of events, namely, the application

¶36

submitted to the Collector on 10th December, 2018,

¶37

the petition is filed in this Court on 14th
January, 2019, when there is nothing on record to

¶38

assume that the respondents-authorities, more

¶39

1278.19wp

¶40

(4)

¶41

particularly, Collector or competent authority, who
is dealing the application causing unnecessary
delay in decision, the party is approaching this
Court within a span of hardly three weeks seeking
directions to the authorities.

¶42

5.Learned Counsel for the petitioners

¶43

submitted that in similar circumstances, the
Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition
No.12194 of 2018 passed order on 14th December,
2018 thereby directing the authority to decide the
application within stipulated period.

¶44

6.Resultantly, the petition is disposed of,

¶45

with directions to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to decide
the application filed by the petitioner, on the

¶46

backdrop of judgment of this Court reported in
2001(2) Mh.L.J. 279 in the matter of Rajaram

¶47

Gajanan Gangal and others vs. Special Land

¶48

Acquisition Officer, as well as the judgment of the

¶49

Hon'ble the Apex Court reported in (2017) 9 S.C.C.

¶50

426 in the matter of Narendra and others vs. State

¶51

of Uttar Pradesh and others expeditiously and

¶52

1278.19wp (5)

¶53

preferably within eight (8) weeks from the date of
this order. In case, the procedure contemplates
hearing of the parties, respondent Nos.1 and 2
shall offer an opportunity of hearing to the
parties.

¶54

7.With these directions, the petition is

¶55

disposed of.

¶56

( S.M.GAVHANE )(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
JUDGE JUDGE

¶57

Tupe

Bhika Laxman Solankar through Lrs Laxman Bhika Solankar through Lrs Shripad Laxman Solankar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhika Laxman Solankar through Lrs Laxman Bhika Solankar through Lrs Shripad Laxman Solankar and Ors. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tejas Laxman Kolod through Father Laxman Ramchandra Kolod and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rajeshwar Piraji Kolod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Milind Vijay Shewale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Raosaheb Shripad Solankar through Lrs Karbhari Raosaheb Solankar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sheku Laxman Solankar through Lrs Punjaram Sheku Solankar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

M/S Skyrail Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Jalgaon through Authorized Representative Pravin Narayan Rindhe Vs Maharashtra State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. and Others