Mr. Abdul Qayyum Moazzam Ali v. Thane Municipal Corporation
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The Petition is disposed of accordingly
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. The land in question belongs to the Petitioners have but already been used by the Corporation for the purpose of construction of D.P. Road. The Petitioners having approached this Amol D. Nawale 1 Court for seeking compensation, in accordance with law for portion of…
- Para 33. In view of the above, we direct the Corporation to pay compensation to the Petitioners by following the procedure prescribed in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, starting from its Section 19 and onwards, which…
- Para 55. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. The Petition is disposed of accordingly. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.) Amol D. Nawale 3
Judgment
Cause title
Mr. G. S. Godbole Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Kaustubh Thipsay & Ms. Shaivani Samel for the Petitioner.
Mr. N. R. Bubna a/w
Ms. Pooja Malik for the Respondent No.1 to 3
Mr. A. A. Alaspurkar AGP for the Respondent No.4. Mr. Akash D. Warang a/w. Ms. Pradnya R. Kamble for the Respondent No.5. ____________________________________
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE & RAJESH .S. PATIL, JJ. DATED : 25th JULY, 2023
ORAL JUDGMENT :
(PER SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the parties.
The land in question belongs to the Petitioners have but already been used by the Corporation for the purpose of construction of D.P. Road. The Petitioners having approached this Amol D. Nawale 1 Court for seeking compensation, in accordance with law for portion of the land of the Petitioner used by the Corporation, there was request for taking measurement of the land actually used by the Corporation. Measurement accordingly, was taken and report was submitted. Cognizance of measurement report was taken by this Court and it was noted in the order dated 16th January, 2023 that as the area actually used by the Corporation for construction of DP Road has been shown therein, the Corporation could conveniently initiate process for grant of compensation, in lieu of land used for the purpose of construction of DP Road, in accordance with law. As per the measurement report marked as Document ‘A’, the land used for the purpose of construction DP Road is 0.01.48 HR which is equivalent to 148 Sq.Mtrs., and that would mean that the Corporation would have to pay compensation for using this much area of the land belonging to the Petitioners. Of course, initially the Corporation had expressed its willingness to grant TDR in lieu of the land used, but the Petitioners were not ready to accept the TDR. This Court has observed in its order dated 16th January, 2023 that the Corporation would have to grant compensation to the Petitioner, in accordance with law. This was in consonance with the view taken by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shree Vinayak Builders & Developers V/s. State of State of Maharashtra decided on 25th July, 2022, and reiterated and followed by this Court in Smt. Anandibai Kisan Jabar and Ors V/s. The Commissioner, Thane Municipal Corporation and Anr decided on 12th July, 2023. Amol D. Nawale 2
In view of the above, we direct the Corporation to pay compensation to the Petitioners by following the procedure prescribed in the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, starting from its Section 19 and onwards, which shall be monetary compensation, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of writ of this Court.
Operative part
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. The Petition is disposed of accordingly. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.) Amol D. Nawale 3
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Petition is disposed of accordingly
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 25 Jul 2023. The bench was RAJESH S PATIL, SUNIL B SHUKRE.
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.