Dismissed

Kiran Bhairu Tanavade v. the State of Maharashtra Secretary Revenue and Forest and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Mar 2023PIL/54/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed this PIL challenging a 2019 Government Resolution allotting land to project affected persons for rehabilitation, holding that the matter cannot be entertained as allotments had already been made and possession delivered, and the petitioner approached very late.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed; no costs awarded.

Kiran Bhairu Tanavade Vs the State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

2-PIL-54-2022

¶2

jvs

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

SALUNKE J V

¶5

Digitally signed by SALUNKE J V Date: 2023.03.28 11:01:19 +0530

¶6

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 54 OF 2022

¶7

Kiran Bhairu Tanavade .. Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶10

Mr. Ashish Pawar for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader with Ms. R. A. Salunkhe, AGP for State

¶12

Ms. Chaitrali Deshmukh for respondent no. 8.

¶13

CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA, ACTING CJ. & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶14

DATE: MARCH 27, 2023

¶15

P.C.:

¶16

1. The petitioner is challenging the Notification/Government Resolution dated 28^th May 2019. Under the said Government Resolution, about 40 Hector 53 Are gairan land was decided to be allotted to project affected persons for their rehabilitation. 2. The learned Government Pleader and the learned advocate for respondent no. 8 submits that allotments have already been made to the project affected persons for their rehabilitation and in respect of some land, possession has already been delivered. 3. It is the contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner that the Government Resolution dated 28^th May

¶17

¶18

2-PIL-54-2022

¶19

2019 is against the dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Others , reported in AIR 2011 SC 1123 and the earlier Government Resolution dated 12^th July 2011.

¶20

4. We certainly would have considered the present petition if the petitioner had approached immediately. Now a statement is also made that the lands as mentioned in the Government Resolution are already allotted to the project affected persons for rehabilitation and some of them have already been put in possession. It will not be appropriate now to displace those persons who were earlier displaced and are now rehabilitated on the said land. The petitioner has approached very late.

¶21

5. In the present case, it is not the case that the land is being allotted for some commercial purpose or to any private entity to carry out some commercial or residential projects. The land is allotted to the project affected persons so as to rehabilitate them.

¶22

6. In view of the fact that allotments are already made to the displaced project affected persons and since possession has already been delivered in respect of some of them, it will not be appropriate now to entertain the public interest litigation. The same is disposed of. No costs.

¶23

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶24

Kiran Bhairu Tanavade v. the State of Maharashtra Secretary Revenue and Forest and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kiran Bhairu Tanavade v. the State of Maharashtra Secretary Revenue and Forest and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhananjay Raghunath Kulkarni and Anr. Vs Respondent no. 1 is deleted as per Courts order dtd 24/11/2022

Rajesh Waman Rane Vs Maharashtra Housing Area and Development Authority and Ors.

Haishankar Raman Kunan Vs the State of Maha. Thr. Secretary Dept. of Public Works and Ors.

Suresh Vitthalrao Barge and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Chief Secretary and Anr.

Nandkumar B. Pawar and Anr. Vs Union of India Thr Ministry of Mines and Ors.

Nandkumar B. Pawar and Anr. Vs Union of India Thr Ministry of Mines and Ors.

Mr. Chandu Vijay Patil Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sanjay Tanaji Gurav vs the Collector, Mumbai Suburban District and 4 Ors.

Namdeo G Ahirrao Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Yogesh Laxman Jadhav Vs the Collector Solapur and Ors.

Vishal Prabhakar Naik and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Gen. Administration Dept. and Ors.

Union of India Vs Deepak Kumar

Kiran Bhairu Tanavade Vs the State of Maharashtra Secretary Revenue and Forest and Ors.

M/S. Sun Corporation through Its Partner Shri. Vinod B.Nisar Vs Union of India and Ors.