Nasheebi Mohammad Shaikh vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 751 Bom

                                      {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

{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