Disposed

Narayan Ganpat Ugle and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through Its the Secretary and Others

Bombay HC20 Mar 2024WP/3075/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three writ petitions filed by petitioners challenging the state's response to representations made regarding land acquisition dating back to 2008. The High Court held that while a Mandamus may not compel administration to respond to a legal notice, the unknown fate of the lands necessitated intervention.

What did the court decide?

Directed Respondent No. 5 to respond to the petitioners' representations/notice following due legal procedure within 60 days.

Narayan Ganpat Ugle and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:6512-DB

¶2

973, 978, 979.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3070 OF 2024

¶5

Tara Bhagwan Tikhe And Others

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State Of Maharashtra Through
Its The Secretary And Others

¶8

AND

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 3075 OF 2024

¶10

Narayan Ganpat Ugle And Others

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

The State Of Maharashtra Through Its The Secretary And
Others

¶13

AND

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO. 3076 OF 2024

¶15

Dagadus Karbhari Pawar And Others

¶16

VERSUS

¶17

The State Of Maharashtra Through

¶18

Its The Secretary And Others

¶19

...

¶20

Mr. N. R. Thorat h/f Mr. G. R. Baviskar, Advocate for
the Petitioners

¶21

Mr. D. R. Korde, Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya & Mr. A.A.A. Khan,
AGPs for Respondents/State

¶22

...

¶23

PER COURT :

¶24

1.Petitionersrepresentationsthroughan

¶25

Advocate, dated 20.12.2022, 28.07.2023 & 20.09.2023,

¶26

are addressed to the District Collector. The

¶27

Petitioners have made certain requests with regard to

¶28

Page 1 of 2

¶29

973, 978, 979.odt

¶30

acquisition of lands in the said representation.

¶31

2.The learned AGPs submit that a Writ of

¶32

Mandamuscannot be issued to the District

¶33

Administration to respond to a legal notice.

¶34

3.The learned AGP may be right in saying so.
However, the grievance of the Petitioners is that they
are unable to judge as to what is the fate of their
lands whose possession was taken over in 2008.

¶35

4.In view of the above, we direct Respondent No.
5 to respond to the said representations/notice by
following the due procedure laid down in law, within a
period of 60 days.

¶36

5.Considering the above, these Petitions are
disposed off.

¶37

(R. M. JOSHI, J) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J)

¶38

Malani

¶39

Page 2 of 2

Narayan Ganpat Ugle and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through Its the Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narayan Ganpat Ugle and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through Its the Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rangnath Wadju Surve and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Suryabhan Pandurang Kadam and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Laxman Machindra Ware Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Tara Bhagwan Tikhe and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its the Secretary and Others

Sunil Bhimashankar Walse Vs the Principal Commissioner Income Tax and Others

Sunil Bhimashankar Walse Vs the Principal Commissioner Income Tax and Others