Dismissed

Priyanka Swayam Ajmera and Another v. the Competent Authority and Deputy Collector Land Acquisition and Another

Bombay HC21 Sept 2021WP/1037/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought compensation for land acquired for road widening. The court held that disputed title issues cannot be adjudicated via writ and referred parties to the competent civil court, while directing the respondent to verify re-joint measurements.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; respondents directed to verify re-joint measurement report; petitioners to approach civil court if disputes persist.

Priyanka Swayam Ajmera and Another Vs the Competent… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1037.20WP.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

917 WRIT PETITION NO.1037 OF 2020

¶5

Priyanka Swayam Ajmera, Age: 32 yrs. Occu. Household, R/o. Marwadgalli, Osmanabad. Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.

¶6

Iti Saurabh Ajmera, Age: 30 yrs, Occu. Household, R/o. As above. .. PETITIONERS

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The Competent Authority and Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Manjara Prakalp Osmanabad, Osmanabad Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.

¶9

Project Director Rashtriya Mahamarg Pradhikaran Prakalp Karyanvyan Unit Nanded, Bharadwaj Vyankatdhari Nagar, Near Ayodya Nagari Malegaon Road, Taroda Khurd, Nanded-05. .. RESPONDENTS

¶10

Mr.A.S.More, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.A.B.Dhongade, Standing Counsel for respondent no.1. Mr.A.V.Sakolkar, Advocate holding for Ms.V.T.Sakolkar, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶11

1037.20WP.odt

¶12

¶13

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & S. G. MEHARE, JJ.

¶14

DATED : 21.09.2021

¶15

PER COURT :

¶16

By this Petition, the petitioner has put-forth prayer clause-B, which reads as under :-

¶17

(B) This Hon’ble court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions in the like nature, directing the respondent No. 1 & 2 to pay the compensation to the petitioners in respect of their acquired land admeasuring 11 R from gut No.142/2 situated at Tuljapur, Tal. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad and for that purpose necessary orders may kindly be issued.

¶18

While issuing notice, this Court had recorded that the petitioners claimed that 11 R. land is affected by road widening. No interim relief was granted.

¶19

Having heard the learned counsel for the respective sides for quite sometime, we find that the re-joint measurement, the details of which are before us at page-13 in the petition paper book, has been disputed by the National Highways Authority. Vide communication dated 24.02.2021

¶20

1037.20WP.odt

¶21

¶22

addressed to the Competent Authority and the Deputy Collector, Manjara Project, the GM Technical of respondent no.2 requested the Competent Authority to take the assistance of the District Superintendent of Land Records, Osmanabad to verify the merits of the re-joint measurement report produced by the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records, Tuljapur.

¶23

We find that there are several disputed questions, inasmuch as, the very title of the petitioners to the land admeasuring 11 R. in Gat No.142/2 at Tuljapur is questioned. At the stage of 3D enquiry under the National Highways Act, the authorities find that the land, claimed by the petitioners to be belonging to them, is actually a road and the land is of ‘Government entity’.

¶24

We have no doubts that we cannot entertain disputed questions and more so when the title of the claimants is questioned. Such issues could be considered for adjudication only by the Competent Civil Court. This Petition, therefore, need not be entertained.

¶25

However, as we find that as the G.M. Technical and Project Director of the National Highways Authority of India has advised the Competent Authority and the Deputy Collector, Manjara Project, by his communication dated 24.02.2021, to take assistance of the Deputy Superintendent of

¶26

1037.20WP.odt

¶27

¶28

Land Records to verify the merits of the re-joint measurement report, it would be appropriate for respondent no.2 to make one more effort as is set out in paragraph 5 of the communication dated 24.02.2021. Thereafter, if disputed issues still remain unresolved as to whether, the land claimed by the petitioners is a Government land, the claimants would be at liberty to approach the Competent Civil Court, to seek redressal.

¶29

In view of the above, this Petition is disposed

¶30

off.

¶31

[S. G. MEHARE] [RAVINDRA V. GHUGE] JUDGE JUDGE

¶32

DDC

Priyanka Swayam Ajmera and Another v. the Competent Authority and Deputy Collector Land Acquisition and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Swayam Ajmera and Another v. the Competent Authority and Deputy Collector Land Acquisition and Another

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

Subhash Namdeo Tantak and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ramesh Janikram Bharate and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sheshrao Bhimrao Shinde and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ashwini Hanumant Paralkar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vasant Sukhdev Hatagale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Balaji Sand Suppliers through Its Proprietor Satish Dnyandev Waghole Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others