Remanded

Vidarbha Irrigation Corporation Development Thr. Executive Engineer, Arunawati Project, Yavatmal v. Shyamrao Ramji Gawande and Another

Bombay HC20 Jun 2023MCA/99/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an eviction matter, the court recalled a prior order based on a false statement regarding judgment coverage and notified date differences. The matter was remanded for fresh hearing. A review application was allowed, and the acquisition authority was added as a respondent, which waived notice.

What did the court decide?

The order passed in eviction was recalled; review allowed; matter heard afresh; acquiring authority added as respondent.

Vidarbha Irrigation Corporation Development Thr. Executive… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1 940 mca 99-2022

¶2

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

¶3

MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO.99/2022 IN

¶4

FIRST APPEAL NO.653/1992

¶5

Vidarbha Irrigation Corporation Development through Executive Engineer, Arunawati Project, Yavatmal

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Shamrao Ramaji Gawande and others

¶8

¶9

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶10

Court's or Judge's orders

¶11

¶12

Ms Mallika Babhulkar, Advocate h/f Shri M.A. Kadu, Advocate for applicant Shri R.J. Shinde, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 Shri K.L. Dharmadhikari, AGP for respondent Nos.3 to 5

¶13

CORAM : SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J. DATED : 20/06/2023

¶14

It appears that the judgment passed by this Court relying on the statement made by the appellant that it is covered by the judgment in First Appeal No.13/1995. However, after perusal of judgment in First Appeal No.13/1995, though, it is in respect of same village, it is not for the same purpose nor the date of issuance of notification is same. There is difference of about 5 years in notification involved in First Appeal No.13/1995 and notification involved in First Appeal No.653/1992. As such, I am satisfied that the order passed needs to be recalled.

¶15

On perusal of order dated 21/02/2022, the concerned judge also opined that the judgment was based on false statement and therefore, it was stayed

¶16

2 940 mca 99-2022

¶17

till the next date of hearing.

¶18

The learned Counsel for appellant relied on S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by LRS Vs. Jagannath (dead) by LRS. And others, reported in (1994) 1 SCC 1 , though in view of this judgment, the village is the same, however, there is difference of 5 years in issuance of notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act.

¶19

As such, the order passed by this Court needs to be recalled and matter needs to be heard afresh. Accordingly, review is allowed.

¶20

The Registry is directed to register the First Appeal on its original number.

¶21

FIRST APPEAL NO.653/1992

¶22

It is pointed out that Vidarbha Irrigation Corporation Development is not made a party though it is acquiring body. As such appellants are directed to add ‘Vidarbha Irrigation Corporation Development’ as party respondent.

¶23

Ms Mallika Babhulkar, learned Counsel waives notice for newly added party i.e. Vidarbha Irrigation Corporation Development.

¶24

List the matter for final hearing thereafter.

¶25

Signed By:RANJANA SAMEER SAHARE

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

Signing Date:11.07.2023 14:58

¶28

R.S. Sahare

Vidarbha Irrigation Corporation Development Thr. Executive Engineer, Arunawati Project, Yavatmal v. Shyamrao Ramji Gawande and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vidarbha Irrigation Corporation Development Thr. Executive Engineer, Arunawati Project, Yavatmal v. Shyamrao Ramji Gawande and Another

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

Mahadeo Sadashiv Ghope vs Shemba Shikshan Samiti Shemba, Bk. Nandura through Its Secretary, Shri P. S. Supe and Others

Kamrunisa Wd/O Sheikh Hanif and Another Vs M/S Essen, Kolkatta (W.B.) and Another

Vijaya Wd/O Madhukar Durge and Others Vs Shri Bharat S/O Dattatray Jog and Others

Union of India, Thr. the General Manager, Western Railway, Mumbai Vs Vasanta S/O Namdeo Thutan and Others

Executive Engineer, Bembla Canal Division, Yavatmal Vs Smt. Triveni Manikrao Chincholkar and Others

M/S Aditya Auto Agencies, Thr. Its Prop. P Jain Vs Employees State Insurance Corpn. by Jt. Director