Dismissed

Kazi Akiluddin S/O Sujauddin and Another v. the State of Maharashtra, through Colletor, Akola and 3 Others

Bombay HC3 Sept 2021WP/987/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application for correction in a land acquisition award, the High Court held that disputes on valuation basis are not clerical errors under Section 33 of the 2013 Act. The petition was dismissed as unmeritorious.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

Kazi Akiluddin S/O Sujauddin and Another Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 wp987.2021.odt

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.987/2021

¶4

Kazi Akiluddin S/o Sujauddin and another
..Vs..

¶5

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶6

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order

¶7

Mr. A.A. Syed, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. A.A. Madiwale, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr. N.G. Moharir, Advocate for respondent No.4.

¶8

CORAM :- SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND

¶9

ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATED:- 3.9.2021.

¶10

Heard.

¶11

2.The petitioners are aggrieved by the rejection of
their application dated 13.6.2017 filed under Section 33
of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 (for short “Act of 2013”) seeking correction in the
award dated 31st May, 2017. According to the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the correction in the award
having been sought as regards the change of basis of
valuation of the piece of land acquired by the Land
Acquisition Officer, it fell squarely within the scope of
Section 33 of the Act of 2013, which proposition has
been disagreed to by the learned A.G.P. and learned
counsel for respondent No.4.

¶12

3.On going through the impugned communication

¶13

2 wp987.2021.odt

¶14

dated 2.12.2019, it can be at once seen that no fault
could be found therein. The respondent No.2 has
appropriately considered the scope of Section 33 of the
Act of 2013 and has concluded that the change sought as
regards the basis of valuation of the acquired land does
not fall within the expression “clerical or arithmetical
mistakes” employed in Section 33 of the Act of 2013.
Any dispute regarding the basis of valuation of the
acquired land cannot be said to be a “clerical or
arithmetical mistake”. There is no substance in the
petition. The petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶15

JUDGE

¶16

 JUDGE

¶17

Tambaskar.

Kazi Akiluddin S/O Sujauddin and Another v. the State of Maharashtra, through Colletor, Akola and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kazi Akiluddin S/O Sujauddin and Another v. the State of Maharashtra, through Colletor, Akola and 3 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

Suresh S/O. Maroti Gorale and Others Vs State of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Cooperation, Marketing and Textile, Mumbai and Otehrs

Shri Tarun S/O Madanmohan Das and Another Vs the Authorised Officer, Allahabad Bank, Branch at Tiwari Sadan, Nagpur

Rajendra S/O. Wamanrao Dhote and Others Vs Director, Nagpur Mahanagar Metro Regional Devpt. Authority (Nmmrda), Nagpur and Others

Shital D/O Siddharth Ukey Vs Mission Director, Mumbai and Others

Dr. Bhimrao Karuji Meshram Vs State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary, Public Health Deaprtment, Mumbai and Another

Jayant S/O Bhaskar Gaopande Vs Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Communications, Dept. of Post, New Delhi and Others