Dismissed

Prashant Digambar Vitkari and Others v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Chief Secretary Dept. of Revenue and Forest and Others

Bombay HC24 Jan 2020WP/496/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Nagpur Bench dismissed this writ petition. The Court held that payment of compensation is not a condition precedent for taking over land and directed the petitioners to use Section 3-H(3) of the National Highways Act, 1956 for compensation disputes.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to use Section 3-H(3) of the National Highways Act for compensation disputes. Writ petition dismissed.

Prashant Digambar Vitkari and Others Vs State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

1 929wp496-20.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.496/2020

¶4

Prashant Digamber Vitkari and others

¶5

Vs.

¶6

State of Maharashtra through the Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue and Forest,
Mantralay, Mumbai and others

¶7

…........................................................................................................................................
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of

¶8

Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order
of directions and Registrar's orders

¶9

........................................................................................................................................…...
Shri V. K. Paliwal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri A.S. Fulzele, Addl. G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶10

CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE &

¶11

AMIT B. BORKAR, JJ. DATED : 24^th January, 2020.

¶12

For apportionment of compensation, the
petitioners have remedy to raise such a dispute under
sub-section (3) of Section 3-H of the National Highways
Act, 1956.

¶13

The petitioner is at liberty to adopt such
procedure to claim compensation in respect of Gat No.
20. We make it clear that the payment of compensation
shall not be the condition precedent for taking over the
possession of land.

¶14

With the above observations, Writ Petition is
dismissed.

¶15

JUDGEJUDGE

¶16

JPP

Prashant Digambar Vitkari and Others v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Chief Secretary Dept. of Revenue and Forest and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Digambar Vitkari and Others v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Chief Secretary Dept. of Revenue and Forest and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Income Tax -I Vs M/S Dutta Meghe Institutue of Medical Science, Khamla

Suresh S/O Maroti Kadam and 2 Ors. Vs State of Mah. Thru. Secty. and 9 Ors.

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Iii Vs M/S Plasti Surge Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Kesrimal S/O Bansilal Lahoti Vs Reserve Bank of India, Nagpur through General Manager and Another

Shashishekhar S/O Dinkarrao Deshpande Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Home Department, Mumbai and Others

M/S Candico (India) Ltd. Nagpur Vs Assistant Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Nagpur