Dismissed

Mahendra S/O. Ganeshrao Bharsakale v. the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Nagpur and Others

Bombay HC20 Sept 2024WP/5585/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The NAGPUR Bench held that the Registrar of the Land Acquisition Authority must apprise the Authority about the statutory requirement for the Collector to apply his mind while referring objections under Section 76. The writ petition was allowed to be withdrawn with directions to the Tribunal clerk to issue appropriate clarification.

What did the court decide?

The petition was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed. The clerk was directed to apprise the Authority and issue appropriate clarification within two weeks.

Mahendra S/O. Ganeshrao Bharsakale Vs the Land Acquisition… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:10552-DB 918-WP-5585-24.od t

¶2

1/2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.5585 OF 20 24

¶5

Mahendra S/o Ganeshrao Bharsakale, Rudhana, Tah. Sangrampur, Dist. Buldhana

¶6

-vs-

¶7

The Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Nagpur and ors.

¶8

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and the Registrar's orders.

¶9

Court's or Judge's Orders.

¶10

Shri N. B. Kalwaghe, Advocate for petitioner.

¶11

Shri J. Y. Ghurde, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶12

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ. DATE : September 20, 2024

¶13

We have heard Shri N. B. Kalwaghe, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the Scheme under Section 76 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the Act of 2013’).

¶14

Shri Kalwaghe is justified in claiming that provisions of Section 76 are pari materia with that of Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and in such an eventuality, while referring the objections as is provided under Section 76, it is mandatory for the Collector to apply his mind as has been laid down by this Court in the matter of Sayed Mohamed Shah Abdul Hamid Kadri vs. State of Maharashtra and anr. 2005(4) Mh.L.J. 1060.

¶15

As far as issuance of impugned communication by the Registrar of the Land Acquisition Authority constituted so as to deal with the objections received under Section 76 of the Act of 2013 is concerned,

¶16

we permit the petitioner to apprise the said Authority/Tribunal about

¶17

918-WP-5585-24.od t

¶18

2/2

¶19

the aforesaid law laid down in the matter of Sayed Mohamed Shah Abdul Hamid Kadri (supra).

¶20

We expect the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal to take note of the same and issue appropriate clarification to the communication dated 12/08/2024 under the signature of the Registrar of the said Authority.

¶21

Let aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of two weeks from the date of production of copy of this order before the said Authority.

¶22

As far as merits of the present case is concerned, the counsel for the petitioner on instructions prays for withdrawal of the petition so as to enable him to contest the claim before the appropriate Authority constituted for dealing with the claims made under Section 76 of the Act of 2013.

¶23

The writ petition is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed.

¶24

Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.

¶25

(Abhay J. Mantri, J.) (Nitin W. Sambre, J.)

¶26

Asmita

Mahendra S/O. Ganeshrao Bharsakale v. the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Nagpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra S/O. Ganeshrao Bharsakale v. the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Nagpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Savitribai Fule Mahila Matsayavyavasay Sahkari Sanstha, Thr. President Surekha W/O Deepak Khadse Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary Ministry of Fisheries, Daily Deve.and Animal Husbandary and Ot

Smt. Lajwanti Wd/O Fagunmal Motwani and Another Vs Nagar Parishad, Pulgaon, Wardha Thr. Its Chief Officer and Others

Mrs. Sheela Kanti Singhee and Others Vs Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur through Its Municipal Commissioner and Others

Shubham Vijay Bagde Vs the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Amravati Thr. Member Secy.

Juhi Umeshrao Gajapure Vs Nagarjuna Institute of Technology and Management, Thr. Principal and Ors.

Vidarbha Mahila Welfare Society, Jalgaon Jamod, Thr. Secretary, Buldhana Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of School Education, Mumbai and Ors.