In a writ petition regarding the inaction on a Section 28-A application under the Land Acquisition Act, the Court noted that the State admitted the competent authority could decide within 90 days, leading to immediate disposal.
None. Disposed on terms that the competent authority could decide within 90 days.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2024:BHC-AUG:3949-DB
53-WP-1956-2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1956 OF 2024
Keshav Narayan Dake….Petitioner
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra and Others…..Respondents
...
Mrs. M. A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. R. S. Wani, AGP for Respondents - State
...
CORAM:RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
R. M. JOSHI, JJ
DATE:FEBRUARY 21, 2024
PER COURT :
1.The Petitioner has put-forth prayer clause ‘C’
as under:
C)The Respondent No. 2 may kindly be
directed to decide the application of the
petitioner U/s. 28-A of Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 dated 26/12/2022 by issue of Writ
of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or directions.
2.The learned AGP submits on instructions that
the competent authority can decide the said application
within the period of 90 days by verifying the record.
3.In view of the above statement, this Petition
is disposed off.
(R. M. JOSHI, J) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J)
Malani
Page 1 of 1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the state authority must be directed via writ of mandamus to decide a Section 28-A application within 90 days if it admits competence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Keshav Narayan Dake
The State Of Maharashtra
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
R. M. JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court