Partly allowed

Alishanbee Shabbir Pathan v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Bombay HC14 Jun 2023WP/3607/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court partially allowed a writ petition regarding land acquisition for a MIDC project. It directed the State Government to allot land equivalent to 15% of the acquired land to the petitioner within 90 days, despite the argument that the Rehabilitation Officer's certificate was non-mandatory under a specific policy.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the State Government to allot 15% of the acquired land (0H 27R) to the petitioner within a period of 90 days.

Alishanbee Shabbir Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

( 1 )

¶2

901 wp 3607.23

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

901 WRIT PETITION NO.3607 OF 2023

¶5

ALISHANBEE SHABBIR PATHAN

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶8

THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶9

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Ghatol Patil Shahaji B.
AGP for Respondents/State : Mr. S.W. Munde

¶10

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
DATE :14th June, 2023

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

1.

¶13

On 29.03.2023, this Court passed the following order:

¶14

". We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.
Ghatol Patil. He has invited our attention to Clause (b) of Sub
Section (4) of Section 1 of the Maharashtra Act No. XI of 2001
viz Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act,
1999. According to him since the said Act is applicable even to
the Industrial projects, the impugned communication issued by
the Rehabilitation Officer on 24.02.2022 is not sustainable.
According to him merely because land of the petitioner to the
extent of 27R was acquired for MIDC purpose, still petitioner is
entitled for extension of benefit.

¶15

2. Issue notice to respondents, returnable on 06.06.2023. Learned A. G. P. waives notice for respondent Nos. 1 to 4."

¶16

( 2 ) 901 wp 3607.23

¶17

3. We direct the respondents to complete the pleadings by
returnable date."

¶18

2.On 06.06.2023, this matter was heard and at the request of the

¶19

AGP, it was adjourned. On 13.06.2023, this matter was heard and again was
adjourned at the request of the AGP.

¶20

3.Today, we have considered the submissions of the learned
advocates for the respective sides.

¶21

4.The learned AGP submits on specific instructions from the District
Rehabilitation Officer, Shri Prabhoday Govind Mule that the Government has a
policy of allotting 15% of the land which is acquired for the industrial project
for setting up of industrial area under the MIDC. With this statement, the
Petitioner stands to gain a plot or land which is equivalent to 15% of his total
land which has been acquired. Due to this policy, the MIDC is not required to
issue ‘Project Affected Person’ certificates.

¶22

5.The Petitioner has lost 0H 27R land in gut no.34 which was
acquired for setting up of the Shendra 5 Star MIDC area. The learned advocate
for the Petitioner makes a statement on instructions that the Petitioner has not
been allotted any such land to the extent of 15%.

¶23

( 3 ) 901 wp 3607.23

¶24

6. In view of the above, this petition is partly allowed . The State

¶25

Government shall ensure that 15% of the land, as is allocable to the Petitioner
in relation to 0H 27R land acquired for the project, shall be alloted within a
period of 90 days from today, if not already allotted.

¶26

 [Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.][RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.]

¶27

mub

Alishanbee Shabbir Pathan v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Alishanbee Shabbir Pathan v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Vinayak and Company through Its Partner Sunita Gopal Agrawal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Kachru Adhane and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nanasaheb Jaywantrao Wakle and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Changdev Tukaram Halnoor Vs the State of Maharashtra through Revenue Department through the Secretary and Others

Narayan Shankar Jadhav and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Karbhari Balaji Phapale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others