Writ petition challenging rejection of a Section 28A Land Acquisition Act application on grounds of delay; the Court disposed of the petition in light of binding Supreme Court and Bombay High Court precedent holding there is no provision to condone such delay.
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.
2487.24wp
2024:BHC-AUG:6010-DB
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
919 WRIT PETITION NO. 2487 OF 2024
BALAJI SUBHASH GORE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND OTHERS
Mr Ramraje A. Deshmukh, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr S. K. Tambe, A.G.P. for Respondents/State
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND R. M. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE : 15th March, 2024
PER COURT:
“ B. By issuing writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order directions in the like nature, the impugned order dated 06.10.2023 passed by the Respondent no.2 thereby rejecting the Application filed under section 28A of land Acquisition act may kindly be quashed and set aside and please to remanding back the matter with the Respondent no.2 for fresh consideration;
C) By issuing writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions may kindly be directed to the Respondent no.2 to decide the Application dated 3.10.2023 filed by the petitioner under section 28A of land acquisition act afresh by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner;”
2487.24wp (2)
2487.24wp (3)
others Vs. the Collector, Jalgaon and another, 2019 Mh.L.J. Online (SC) 240; Bir Wati and others Vs. Union of India and others, 2017 Mh.L.J. Online (SC) 216 = 2017 (16) SCC 548; and Parasmal Kunjilal Jain Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2014 Mh.L.J. Online 203 = 2015 (7) ALL MR 320, etc.
(R. M. JOSHI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
sjk
Signed by: Sachin J Kulkarni Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 19/03/2024 11:46:47
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an application under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 rejected on grounds of delay could be remanded for fresh consideration given that the Act contains no provision for condoning
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sheshabai @ Subhadrabai Gyanoba Madale Vs. State of Maharashtra and othersRelied on¶4
2024 (1) Mh.L.J. 317 · Who else cites this
Tota Ram VS. State of Uttar Pradesh and othersRelied on¶5
(1997) 6 SCC 280 · Who else cites this
State of Andhra Pradesh and Another Vs. Marri Venkaiah and othersRelied on¶5
AIR 2003 SC 2949 · Who else cites this
Popat Bahiru Govardhane etc. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer and anotherRelied on¶5
2013 (6) Mh.L.J. (SC) 950 = 2013 AIR SCW 6550 · Who else cites this
Narayan Dhondu Sarode, dead, through LRs and others Vs. the Collector, Jalgaon and anotherRelied on¶5
2019 Mh.L.J. Online (SC) 240 · Who else cites this
Bir Wati and others Vs. Union of India and othersRelied on¶5
2017 Mh.L.J. Online (SC) 216 = 2017 (16) SCC 548 · Who else cites this
Parasmal Kunjilal Jain Vs. State of Maharashtra and anotherRelied on¶5
2014 Mh.L.J. Online 203 = 2015 (7) ALL MR 320 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Balaji Subhash Gore
The State of Maharashtra through District Collector and others
Ravindra V. Ghuge
R. M. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
