Disposed

Arun Bhagwat Chaudhari v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Bombay HC23 Oct 2023WP/12193/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three writ petitions challenging non-acquired land usage for road widening were disposed of. The Court directed authorities to measure lands; if within the alignment, owners must be compensated or land acquired per law. Otherwise, petitioners bear costs.

What did the court decide?

Direction for measurement of lands; compensation or acquisition if land is within alignment; expenses on petitioners otherwise.

Arun Bhagwat Chaudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra through… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

12173.23wp etc

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

30 WRIT PETITION NO.12173 OF 2023

¶5

ISHWAR BHAGWAT CHAUDHARI

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶8

AND

¶9

31 WRIT PETITION NO.12174 OF 2023

¶10

YOGESH AMRUT NIKAM

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶13

AND

¶14

32 WRIT PETITION NO.12193 OF 2023

¶15

ARUN BHAGWAT CHAUDHARI VERSUS

¶16

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶17

Mr Vijay Y. Patil, Advocate for Petitioners in all the Petitions; Mr P. S. Patil, A.G.P. for Respondents/State in all the Petitions

¶18

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND

¶19

Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

¶20

DATE : 23rd October, 2023

¶21

PER COURT:

¶22

Heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the

¶23

learned A.G.P. for the Respondents.

¶24

12173.23wp etc (2)

¶25

An assertion is made in these Petitions that the work relating to road widening of Neri-Jamner, Road No.41 is taking place and certain lands belonging to these Petitioners are coming within the alignment of the said road widening. However, the work is being undertaken without acquiring the land of these Petitioners or without paying any compensation.

¶26

It has been stated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the Petitioners are not opposing the widening of the road and they are even ready to give their lands for the said purpose. However, without acquiring the land and without paying the compensation, but utilization the lands, amounts to violation of their rights under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

¶27

Having regard to the aforementioned facts, we direct that the measurement of the lands belonging to the Petitioners, as per the 7/12 extract, shall be undertaken by the Respondents/Authorities and in case in the said measurement, any land owned by the Petitioners is found to be situated within the alignment of the widening of the road, they shall be adequately compensated either on the basis of private negotiations or by acquiring the lands under the appropriate legislation. In the event,

¶28

12173.23wp etc (3)

¶29

the lands of the Petitioners are not found within the alignment of the road widening, the expenses of the measurement shall be borne by the Petitioners.

¶30

With the aforesaid directions, all these Writ Petitions stand disposed off .

¶31

(Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.)

¶32

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶33

sjk

Arun Bhagwat Chaudhari v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Bhagwat Chaudhari v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and 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

Gyanbai Devidasrao Kondagir Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Vijay Dinkar Patil and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Ranjit Masaji Satpute Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Pandurang Gangadhar Samdurle Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Sayyed Jafargani Chandpasha Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

M/S Sky Biotech Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd. through Ajay Joharilal Gandhi Vs the Union of India and Others