In a PIL challenging land acquisition proceedings due to alleged denial of No Objection Certificate, the Court found the NA order had been issued. Dismissing the petition, the Court directed the deposit refund to a government COVID centre.
Security deposit of Rs. 10,000/- transmitted to the Government COVID centre.
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.
1 pil 91.2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
979 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.91 OF 2019
RAJESH ANNASAHEB BHADGALE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioner:
Mr. M. U. Shelke
AGP for Respondents/State: Mr. S. K. Tambe
ASG for Respondent No. 3: Mr. A. G. Talhar
Advocate for Respondent No. 6: Mr. S. S. Deshmukh
...
CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA & SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.
DATE:18th MARCH, 2021
PER COURT:
1.We have heard Mr. Shelke, learned Counsel for
the petitioner.
2.This Court, initially, entertained the Public
Interest Litigation considering the letter dated
08.04.2019, produced by the petitioner along with
the Public Interest Litigation. Affidavit is filed
by respondent no. 3 / competent authority / Deputy
Collector, Land Acquisition, Jayakwadi Project,
Beed. The doubt, it appears, was created that the
NA permission has not been issued by the Tahsildar
2 pil 91.2019
in favour for respondents no. 6 to 9 and on the
basis of false NA order the higher amount of
compensation is claimed by the respondents.
3.In the affidavit filed by the Deputy
Collector it has been clarified that the Naib
Tahsildar has issued the NA order. The letters to
that effect are placed on record. It appears that
the competent authority has made further enquiry
and has submitted that the order of NA has been
issued by the Tahsil Office, Beed.
4.In light of the above, there is no merit in
the present Public Interest Litigation.
5. Public Interest Litigation is dismissed.
6. We are not inclined to refund the amount of
Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only), deposited by
the petitioner. Same be transmitted to the COVID
centre run by the Government.
[SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]
marathe
RAJESH ANNASAHEB BHADGALE
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
S. V. GANGAPURWALA
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court