M I D C Nashik vs The State Of Mah And Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 1759 Bom

                                                    1

                                         UNREPORTED




                                                                                
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT




                                                        
                                           BOMBAY

                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD.




                                                       
                               WRIT PETITION NO.5857 OF 2008.

              Maharashtra Industrial Development
              Corporation through its Regional
              Officer, Nashik.                   ... Petitioner.




                                        
                             
                               Versus

              1. The State of Maharashtra,
                            
              through Collector, Dhule,

              2. The Sub-divisional Officer,
              Dhule.
      

              3. Abhiman Dayaram Patil,
              Age 55 years, Occ.Agriculturist,
              R/o Avdhan, Tq. & Dist.
   



              Dhule.

              4. Zulal Mulchand Patil
              deceased through L.Rs.





              4-a) Ravindra Zhulal Patil,
              Age 37 years, Occ.Agri.,
              R/o Audhan, Tq. And Dist.
              Dhule.





              4-b) Smt.Suman W/o Zhulal Patil,
              Age 63 years, Occ.Agri. And
              household.

              4-c) Deepak S/o Zhulal Patil,
              Age 35 years, Occ.Agri.,

              4-d) Sanjay S/o Zhulal Patil,
              Age 33 years, Occ.Agri.,

              4-e) Punkaj S/o Zhulal Patil,




    ::: Uploaded on - 25/04/2016                        ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:22:54 :::
                                                     2

              Age 30 years, Occ.Agri.,




                                                                                
              4-f) Kamalesh Zhulal Patil,
              Age 27 years, Occ.Agri.,




                                                        
              All R/o Audhan, Tq. And Dist.
              Dhule.

              5. Hemraj Waman Thakur,




                                                       
              Age major,Occ.Agriculturist,
              R/o Avdhan, Tq. And Dist.
              Dhule.                                             ... Respondents.




                                          
                                        ...

              Mr.S.S.Dande, advocate for the petitioner.
                             
              Mr.A.V.Deshmukh, A.G.P. for the State.
              Mr.M.G.Kolshe Patil, advocate for Respondent
              No.3.
                            
              Mr.B.R.Warma, advocate for Respondent Nos.4-a to
              4-f.
              Mr.A.R.Devkate, advocate for Respondent No.5.

                                              ...
      
   



                                    CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND
                                            K.K.SONAWANE,JJ.

Date : 22.04.2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.)

1. Heard.

2. With the consent of parties, taken up

for final hearing.

3. Learned counsel for Respondents submit

that the award U/s 28-A of the Land Acquisition

Act, passed by the authority is assailed in the

Writ Petition on the ground that the judgment and

award of the Reference Court, pursuant to which

Award U/s 28-A is passed is subjudice in appeal.

Subsequently the Appeals are dismissed and award

U/s 18 is confirmed by this Court.

4. The ground for challenge as per

Mr.Dande, learned counsel for the petitioner was

that the judgment and award passed by the

Reference Court U/s 18 of the Land Acquisition

Act, is stayed by this Court.

5. As the said appeals against the

judgment and award passed by the Reference Court

U/s 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, are itself

dismissed, the ground for challenge in the

present Writ Petition would not survive.

6. In light of the above, the Writ

Petition is dismissed. No costs.

                        Sd/-                                   Sd/-
                (K.K.SONAWANE,J.)                      (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)


              asp/office/wp5857.08