Bombay High Court
Gangadhar Laxman Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 30 August, 2021
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala, R. N. Laddha
..1..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
53 Writ Petition No.9568 Of 2021
Gangadhar Laxman Jadhav .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others .. Respondents
...
Mr Amol G Vasmatkar, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr S.P. Tiwari, AGP for the Respondents - State
Mr Sanket S. Kulkarni, Advocate h/f. Mr G.R. Ingole,
Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 & 5
...
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA
AND
R.N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATE : 30-08-2021
PER COURT : -
1. Mr Vasmatkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
land of the petitioner bearing Gut No.98 was acquired by the
respondents for the purpose of rehabilitation. No compensation
amount has been paid. No acquisition proceedings are initiated till
date. The respondents be directed to initiate acquisition proceedings.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on the following
Judgments :
(i) Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors, AIR
Gajanan
..2..
2020 SC 1496
(ii) Vidya Devi Vs The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors, AIR
2020 SC 4709
3. Mr Kulkarni, learned Counsel for respondent nos.4 and 5
submits that the father of the petitioner had consented to give the
land for the purpose of rehabilitation. The consent letter of the father
of the petitioner is on record. The learned Counsel submits that at
the relevant time the father of the petitioner was paid the
compensation amount. The proceedings were under the erstwhile
Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 (now, Maharashtra Land
Requisition Act) and if the petitioner has a grievance with regard to
the adequacy of compensation, the remedy is available under the said
Act.
4. The learned AGP waives notice for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.
5. It appears that the land claimed by the petitioner is taken in
possession by the respondents with the consent of the father of the
petitioner in the year 1986. The proceedings were initiated
purportedly under Section 5 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act,
1948. The notice was issued to the interested persons declaring that
the said land was not used for residential purpose and got it served
Gajanan
..3..
on the concerned persons. The land was required urgently for
rehabilitation purpose of village Mashti.
6. The father of the petitioner on 03-08-1986 gave consent for
taking his land by the Government and also agreed that he is
agreeable for the compensation that would be paid to him. The
compensation amount was paid to the father of the petitioner for
land Gut No.98. The document to that effect is also placed on record.
7. In case, the persons, whose lands are taken in possession, are
disputing the adequacy of the compensation amount, then the
remedy is provided under the Maharashtra Land Requisition Act. It
was for the father of the petitioner to avail the remedy if he was not
satisfied with the quantum of the compensation amount. The learned
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner
died approximately in the year 2000-01. The father of the petitioner
it appears was not aggrieved with the adequacy of the compensation
amount. It also transpires from the documents on record that almost
25 plots were allotted to the different persons.
8. In light of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to entertain the
Gajanan
..4..
present writ petition. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
No costs.
9. In case, there is any other remedy available in accordance with
law, then there would be no impediment for the parties to take up the
proceedings. All contentions of the respective parties are kept open.
[ R.N. LADDHA ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA ]
JUDGE JUDGE
...
Gajanan
