Allowed

Prakash Rajaram Gurav and Ors. v. the Competent Authority and Sub Division Officer Kankavali Mumbai Goa National Highway and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Apr 2024RPW/13/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition seeking recall of dismissal of a writ petition concerning proceedings under Section 3(H) of the National Highways Act involving apportionment of compensation. The court found an error apparent on the record, allowed the review, made rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (a), and directed parties to appear before the Reference Court.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 30 November 2023 recalled by allowing review; rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a); no costs.

Prakash Rajaram Gurav and Ors. Vs the Competent Authority… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

904-rpw-13-2024.doc

¶2

Nikita

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

REVIEW PETITION NO.13 OF 2024 WITH

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.11529 OF 2023

¶6

Prakash Rajaram Gurav and Anr. … Petitioners V/s.

¶7

NIKITA

¶8

KAILAS DARADE

¶9

Digitally signed byNIKITA KAILAS DARADE Date: 2024.04.10 14:13:39 +0530

¶10

The Competent Authority and Sub-Division Officer Kankavli Mumbai Goa National Highway and Ors. … Respondents

¶11

Mr. Surel S. Shah i/b Mr. Sanskar Marathe, for the Petitioner.

¶12

Mr. P. G. Sawant, AGP for the State-Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶13

Mr. Srikant Narkar, for Respondent No. 3 to 5.

¶14

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶15

DATED : APRIL 10, 2024

¶16

P.C.:

¶17

The review petition is for recalling of order of dismissal dated 30^th November 2023, on the ground that petitioners were party to the award and the reference proceedings were under Section 3(H) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (“the Act”) which are in the nature of apportionment of the compensation amount.

¶18

This Court while dismissing the petition proceeded on the basis that the reference pending before the Reference Court was only for the purpose of deciding the quantum of compensation.

¶19

¶20

904-rpw-13-2024.doc

¶21

However, during the course of argument, parties were ad idem that the dispute of apportionment of the amount is involved before the Reference Court.

¶22

If this be so, the petitioners being party to the award are entitled to be heard in the proceedings under Section 3(H) of the Act as their rights were prejudicially affected.

¶23

Hence, in my opinion, the order dated 30^th November 2023 suffered from error apparent on the face of record. Hence, petitioners have made out a case for review.

¶24

Since, the petitioners state that the original proceedings is in the nature of apportionment of the compensation amount, the petitioners are necessary party to the proceedings. Hence, Writ Petition No.11529 of 2023 needs to be allowed.

¶25

Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

¶26

Parties shall appear before the Reference Court on 22^nd April 2024.

¶27

The review petition stands allowed. No costs.

¶28

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶29

Prakash Rajaram Gurav and Ors. v. the Competent Authority and Sub Division Officer Kankavali Mumbai Goa National Highway and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Rajaram Gurav and Ors. v. the Competent Authority and Sub Division Officer Kankavali Mumbai Goa National Highway and Ors.

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

Usha Narendra Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Government Pleader and Ors.

Khurshid Nooruddin Shaikh (W/O. Nooruddin Shaikh) and Ors. vs Sameer Salim Shaikh and Ors.

Dundappa Aprai Sankeshwari vs Vikas Raoso Jadhav and Ors.

Rumana a. Godal Vs the Chairman Secretary Vaishali Nagar Madhuban Co. Operative Housing Society Ltd.

Nirabai Bhikaji Jadhav and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra Thr Prin. Secretary, Revenue and Ors.

Amit Karim Shaikh and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Housing Dept. and Ors.