Gangubai Bansidhar Gaikwad vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 96 Bom

                                           1              WP 7441 of 2016

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         Writ Petition No.7441 of 2016

     *       Gangubai w/o Bansidhar Gaikwad,
             Age 59 years,
             Occupation : Agriculture,
             R/o Tura, Taluka Pathri,
             District Parbhani.          ..   Petitioner.

                      Versus

     1)      The State of Maharashtra,
             Through the Collector, Jalna

     2)      The Special Land Acquisition
             Officer (B & C), Jalna
             Presently the Sub Divisional
             Officer, Ambad,
             Taluka Ambad, District Jalna.

     3)   The Executive Engineer,
          Nimna Dudhana Project Selu,
          Taluka Selu, District Parbhani
          Presently Jalna Irrigation
          Department, Jalna.         ..   Respondents.
                                                      
                            ----

     Shri. Suhas R. Shirsat, Advocate for petitioner.

     Shri. S.B. Joshi, Assistant Government Pleader, 
     for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

     Shri. A.P. Yenegure, Advocate for respondent No.3

                                         ----

                                       Coram:  T.V. NALAWADE &
                                   SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ. 

                           Date:    27 February 2017





                                        2               WP 7441 of 2016

     ORAL JUDGMENT:


     1)               Rule, rule made returnable forthwith. By 

consent, heard both sides for final disposal.

2) The petition is filed for giving

direction to the respondents, and particularly to

respondent No.2 for sending the Reference filed

for compensation by the present petitioner under

section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the

Reference Court. It is the contention of the

petitioner that the Reference was filed on 17-2-

2007 but till today it is not sent to the

Reference Court and due to that the petitioner is

suffering.

3) The learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that nothing is communicated to the

petitioner about her Reference pending with the

respondent No.2. There is a copy on the record

showing that the office of the respondent No.2

had received that Reference. So this Court holds

that direction needs to be given.

                                     3              WP 7441 of 2016

     4)               In the result, the petition is allowed. 

Direction is given to the respondent No.2 to send

the Reference Application to the Reference Court

within 45 days from today. Rule is made absolute

in those terms.

              Sd/-                         Sd/-
     (SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.)        (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)




     rsl