{1}
wp 9283.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.9283 OF 2016
Nasheebi w/o Mohammad Shaikh
Age: 63 years, Occu: Agri.,
R/o Mungi, Tq. Shevgaon,
Dist. Ahmednagar Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra,
through Collector,
Aurangabad
District: Aurangabad
2 The Sub-Divisional Officer,
& Land Acquisition Officer,
Paithan-Phulambri DMIC Project
Head Office at Aurangabad.
3 Shaikh Gafoor s/o Shaikh Rahim
Age: 66 years, occu: Agri.,
R/o Georai (Brook Bond),
Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad.
4 Shaikh Sandu s/o Shaikh Rahim
Age: 71 years, occu: Agri
R/o Pachegaon, Tq Newasa,
Dist. Ahemadnagar
5 Shaikh Asrafbee w/o Shaikh Chand,
Age: 61 years, Occu: Household,
R/o Nilajgaon, Tq. Paithan
Dist. Aurangabad
6 Shaikh Rubabee w/o Shaikh Ameer,
Age: 61 years, occu: business,
R/o Nilajgaon, Tq. Paithan,
Dist. Aurangabad.
::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:50:15 :::
{2}
wp 9283.16.odt
7 Shaikh Shakil s/o Shaikh Rajjak,
Age: 61 years, occu: business,
R/o Nilajgaon, Tq. Paithan,
Dist. Aurangabad. Respondents
Mr. S.S. Tope advocate for the petitioner Mr. A.S. Shinde, AGP for Respondent No.1 Mr. S.S.Dande advocate for respondent No.2 Mr. D.K. Thote advocate for respondent Nos.6 & 7 _______________ CORAM : R.M. BORDE & P.R. BORA, JJ (Date : 15TH March, 2017.) ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: R.M. Borde, J) 1 Heard. Rule.
2 With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, petition is taken up for final disposal at admission stage. 3 The petitioner is claiming entitlement to the amount of compensation, which has been determined under section 33 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961. The petitioner also contends that, she has already presented a suit claiming her entitlement in respect of the property under acquisition and her prayer for grant of prohibitory orders, restraining the respondents from withdrawal of the amount of compensation, has been turned ::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:50:15 ::: {3} wp 9283.16.odt down by the Civil Court. Although the question of permissibility to receive the amount of compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer under section 33 of the Land Acquisition Act has been dealt with at an interlocutory stage by the Collector as well as the Civil Court, however, in view of section 35 of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961, dispute as regards the apportionment of amount of compensation claimed has to be considered by the Civil Court. Section 35 of the Act of 1961 mandates the Collector to refer the dispute for decision of the Court. In the instant matter, Collector has failed to refer the dispute for decision to the Court.
4 In this view of the matter, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Collector to refer the dispute raised by the petitioner for decision to the Court in accordance with section 35 of the Act of 1961. The order passed by the Collector, refusing to refer the matter for adjudication to the Court stands quashed to that extent. Rule absolute.
5 No costs.
(P.R. BORA, J) (R.M. BORDE, J)
vbd
::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 19:50:15 :::