Partly allowed
Vishnu Babasaheb Londhe and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others
Bombay HCWP/6159/2020
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH…
What the court decided
AI extract
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 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.6159 OF 2020
VISHNU BABASAHEB LONDHE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Mr.S.S.Tope, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.S.B.Yawalkar, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and 7.
Mrs.Sudha Chintamani, Standing Counsel for respondent No.6.
Mr.S.S.Patil, Advocate for respondent No.8.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & S.G. MEHARE, JJ)
DATE : NOVEMBER 23, 2021
PER COURT:
1. By this petition, the petitioners have put forth prayer clauses B &
C as under :-
“B. By issuing the writ of mandamus or any other writ in the like
nature, this Hon’ble Court may kindly direct the respondent
authorities, not to take the forceful possession of the land of the
petitioners for road widening without compensation and without
following due process of law of land acquisition.
C. By issuing the writ of mandamus or any other writ in the like
nature, this Hon’ble Court may kindly direct the respondent
khs/Nov. 2021/6159
- 2 -
authorities, to stop the road widening work of Jalna-Rohanwadi-
Talegaon-Ghansawangi (SH-26) to the extent of lands of
petitioners i.e. villagers of Talegaon and immediately take
appropriate action for compensation against taking possession of
the land to the petitioners.”
2. It is pointed out that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has delivered a judgment on 30/04/2020 in WP No.4717/2019 (connected
petitions). The same order needs to be passed in this petition.
3. The learned AGP and the learned Advocate for respondent No.8, confirm the said statement.
4.In view of the above and for the reasons set out in the judgment
dated 30/04/2020, in WP No.4717/2019, this writ petition is partly
allowed with the same directions set out in paragraph no.23, which
read as under :-
“23. The respondents are allowed to carry out the work on writ
road to the extent of 10 meter wide plus one meter on either
side i.e. 12 meter wide. The respondents shall not carry out
construction of writ road beyond 12 meter without following
due procedure of Law. The respondents int hat case shall
acquire the affected property from the legitimate owner in
khs/Nov. 2021/6159
accordance with the provisions of Law or by private
negotiations.”
( S.G. MEHARE, J. )
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
khs/Nov. 2021/6159
Vishnu Babasaheb Londhe
The State of Maharashtra
S.G. Mehare
Ravindra V. Ghuge
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court