Shri Ganpat Sitaram More & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 s. 48
- Constitution of India art. 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. In view of the above circumstances, the petitioners’ request was rightly rejected. I do not find any merit in the above petition, so as to enable me to interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6965 OF 2011 Shri Ganpat Sitaram More & Anr. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Petitioners ...Respondents Mr. Karan D. Bhosale i/b. Smt. Devika Nigade, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. P. S. Cardozo, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 7. Mr. S. P. Kadam, Advocate for respondent no.8, 10, 12 to 16. DATED : 17th OCTOBER, 2011. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. P.C.: Heard Mr. Bhosale, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. P. S. Cardozo, learned AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 7 and Mr. Kadam, learned counsel for respondent nos. 8, 10, 12 to 16.
By this petition, the petitioners challenged the Communication dated 29th December, 2010 passed by the Deputy Collector, Resettlement, Satara. By the said communication, the petitioners’ request made to the Divisional Commissioner for deletion of their land for acquisition was rejected. It appears that the said request was made under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The land in question originally belonging to the petitioners was acquired long back and award under Section 12 was passed in the year 1994. Possession was already taken from the petitioners by the resettlement Officer and same was allotted to respondent nos. 8 to 16. SSK/939 2 WP/6965.11
In view of the above circumstances, the petitioners’ request was rightly rejected. I do not find any merit in the above petition, so as to enable me to interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
(RANJIT MORE, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — s. 48; Constitution of India — art. 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 17 Oct 2011. The bench was RANJIT MORE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.