Dismissed

Namdeo Dadaba Bhosale v. the Union of India and Others

Bombay HC14 Dec 2021WP/5924/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition regarding land compensation for petroleum pipeline acquisition. The court directed the petitioner to avail of the statutory remedy under Section 10(2) of the 1962 Act and added Indian Oil Corporation Limited as a respondent. The court held the new 2013 Act inapplicable and directed limitation calculation.

What did the court decide?

Directing the petitioner to approach the authority under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1962 and adding Indian Oil Corporation Limited as respondent.

Namdeo Dadaba Bhosale Vs the Union of India and Others — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

907wp5924o20

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.5924 OF 2020

¶5

NAMDEO DADABA BHOSALE VERSUS

¶6

THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

¶7

Advocate for the Petitioner : Shri S.D. Jayabhar h/f Shri Jayabhar Dattatraya R.

¶8

Standing Counsel for Respondent 1 : Shri S.S. Deve Advocate for Respondents 2 and 4 : Shri A.P. Bhandari AGP for Respondent 3 : Shri S.G. Sangle

¶9

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

¶10

S.G. MEHARE, JJ.

¶11

DATE :- 14^th December, 2021

¶12

Per Court :-

¶13

Leave to add the Indian Oil Corporation Limited as

¶14

respondent No.4. Addition be carried out forthwith.

¶15

Issue notice to the added respondent No.4. Shri Bhandari, the learned advocate, causes an appearance and waives

¶16

service of notice on behalf of respondent No.4.

¶17

By this Writ Petition, the petitioner has put forth prayer clauses C, D and E as under :-

¶18

“C) The respondents No.2 may kindly be directed to compensate the petitioner of his acquired

¶19

2 907wp5924o20

¶20

land Survey No.22 area adm. 36 R as per market rate and as per the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and the circulars.

¶21

D) The respondents No.2 may kindly be directed to compensate the petitioner of his acquired land Survey No.22 area adm. 36 R as per produced before the authority within 3 months. E) The respondent No.2 may kindly be restrained from constructing the petroleum pipeline at village Khakalwadi, Tq.Ashti, Dist. Beed in Survey No.22 during the pendency of the instant Writ Petition.”

¶22

Respondent No.4 has sworn an affidavit in reply dated 16.11.2021 through Prasanta Kumar Behera, Deputy General Manager (Construction), Indian Oil Corporation Limited, which is tendered across the bar. The contention is that the new Act i.e. the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, would not be applicable to the case of the petitioner.

¶23

It is further pointed out by placing reliance upon the order passed by this Court (Coram : Sunil P. Deshmukh and R.G. Avachat, JJ) dated 10.12.2020 in Writ Petition No.389/2019 filed by Anshabapu Dhondiba Phalke and others vs. Union of India and others and the order passed by this Court (Coram : Sunil P.

¶24

3 907wp5924o20

¶25

Deshmukh and Abhay Ahuja, JJ) dated 16.02.2021 in Writ Petition No.6732/2019 filed by Sangita Dinesh Karle and others vs. Union of India and others, that these orders have been passed by this Court in connection with the petitioners involved in the same land acquisition.

¶26

Shri Bhandari, the learned advocate, therefore, submits that there is a statutory remedy available under Section 10(2) of the Petroleum Mineral Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (for short “the Act of 1962”).

¶27

The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the other petitioners whom he had represented in the above mentioned matters, have resorted to statutory remedy under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1962. He is agreeable to approach the said authority under the said provision.

¶28

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed off with liberty to the petitioner to avail of a remedy under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1962.

¶29

The learned advocates representing the respective respondents consent and we record that there shall be no objection as regards the maintainability of the proceedings post initiation of the same by this petitioner under Section 10(2).

¶30

4 907wp5924o20

¶31

The time spent by the petitioner before this Court

¶32

from 20.07.2020 until a further period of one month from the passing of this order today, shall be treated as being excluded for the purpose of limitation.

¶33

kps (S.G. MEHARE, J.)

¶34

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )

Namdeo Dadaba Bhosale v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Namdeo Dadaba Bhosale v. the Union of India 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

Sunilkumar Sukhdeo Ahire Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhagyashree Satyanarayan Nalge and Others Vs the Competent Authority National Highways Authority of India

Bhagyashree Satyanarayan Nalge and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shivaji Balkrishna Wakle Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nagraj Namdevrao Manjramkar Vs Swami Ramanand Teerth Marathwada University through Its Registrar and Another

Chand Abbsali Shaikh Vs the Chief Executive Officer Maharashtra State Wakf Board and Others