Remanded

Ramesh Narsinh Kulkarni v. District Collector and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Jan 2020WP/47/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought compensatory land under RRR Act 1999. Court quashed order denying claim by ignoring land acquisition in village Jinti. Petitioner directed to re-decide considering acquisitions in both villages.

What did the court decide?

Communication dated 1st October 2015 quashed; Respondent re-decided application considering acquisitions in Komalwadi and Jinti within three months.

Ramesh Narsinh Kulkarni Vs District Collector and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

1/2 3 WP 47-17.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 47 OF 2017

¶3

Rameshg Narsinh Kulkarni .. Petitioner Versus District Collector, Solapur District, Solapur and others .. Respondents

¶4

Mr. Uday Warunjikar i/b Anant Wadgaonkar for the petitioner. Ms.Nisha Mehra, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 6.

¶5

CORAM: PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, C.J. AND BHARATI DANGRE, J.

¶6

DATED : 3^rd JANUARY, 2020.

¶7

P.C:-

¶8

1 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused their pleadings, the Writ Petition has to be disposed of remanding the claim of the petitioner to be readjudicated upon by the second respondent.

¶9

2 Case of the petitioner is that the ancestral land belonging to the petitioner was acquired in village Komalwadi as also Jinti. The petitioner made an application as a projected affected person under the Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1999 to be allotted compensatory land.

¶10

3 The claim was processed. Compensatory land was Tilak

¶11

2/2 3 WP 47-17.doc

¶12

not alloted on the reasoning that post acquisition holding of the petitioner was adequate and said process of the reasoning was founded on the fact that land in village Jinti (which was an acquired land) was as in the holding of the petitioner.

¶13

4 There are obviously two errors. The first is in treating as if only land in village Komalwadi was acquired thereby considering the entitlement of compensatory land with reference to land acquired only in village Komalwadi. The second is to ignore the acquisition of land in village Jinti thereby resulting in a further error being committed.

¶14

5 These facts not being in dispute, the petition is disposed of quashing the communication dated 1^st October 2015. A direction is issued to the second respondent to re-decide the application filed by the petitioner and while so doing to take into account that land of the petitioner was acquired not only in village Komalwadi but even village Jinti.

¶15

6 The second respondent is directed to comply with the mandamus issued by this Court within three months from today.

¶16

SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J CHIEF JUSTICE

¶17

Tilak

Ramesh Narsinh Kulkarni v. District Collector and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Narsinh Kulkarni v. District Collector and Ors.

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

Sadanand Parshuram Nakhawa Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Bayaji @ Baburao Chimaji Gurav Vs Additional Collector , Kolhapur and Ors.

Shripati Sakharam Yewale Decd Thru Lhr and Anr. Vs the Dy. Collector, Rehabilitation , Pune and Ors.

Shyam Ganu Saple Vs Innovasynth Technologies (I) Ltd.

Shri. Vasant Sadashiv Joshi and Ors. Vs Shri. Yashwant Shankar Barve (Since Deceased) through His Legal Heirs 1.1.MRS.SUNITA Barve and Ors.

Kashiram Dhaku Kamble Vs Collector of Kolhapur and Ors.