Prayagbai Ashruba Jaybhaye vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10464 Bom

 Judgment                                1                        W.P.No.2470.2021.odt


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                         NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                          WRIT PETITION NO. 2470 OF 2021


          Prayagbai Ashruba Jaybhaye,
          Aged about 65 years,
          Occu. - Agriculturist,
          R/o. Andhera, Tah. Deulgaon Raja,
          District Buldana.
                                                             .... PETITIONER

                                   // VERSUS //

 1)       The State of Maharashtra,
          through its Secretary,
          Irrigation Department,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032.

 2)       The land Acquisition Officer/
          Sub Divisional Officer,
          Khadakpurna Project, Sindkhed Raja,
          Tq. Sindkhed Raja,
          District Buldana.
                                               .... RESPONDENTS
  ______________________________________________________________
      Shri Rahul N. Ghuge, Advocate for petitioner.
      Shri A. A. Madiwale, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
 ______________________________________________________________


                           CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                   ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.

DATED : 05.08.2021

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Sunil B. Shukre, J.)

1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

Judgment 2 W.P.No.2470.2021.odt

2. It is stated by the petitioner that her application bearing

No.13 of 2020, filed under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act,

1894 since January, 2020 and it has still not been decided. If this is

true, time is right now for the respondent No.2 to dispose of the same

on it own merits as early as possible.

3. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

4. The respondent No.2 is directed to decide the Application

No.13 of 2020 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible,

preferably within eight weeks from the date of the order, if the

application is still pending.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.

(ANIL S. KILOR, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE J.)

Kirtak