Bombay High Court
Kailasnath Krishnarao Waghdhare ... vs Smt. Shital Deshmukh, Deputy ... on 5 February, 2021
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Nitin B. Suryawanshi
909 cp 345-2019 1/2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CONTEMPT PETITION NO.345 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.316 OF 2017(D)
Shri Kailashnath Krishnarao Waghdhare and another
-vs-
Smt. Shital Deshmukh, Deputy Collector, Special Land Acquisition General, Nagpur
(Maharashtra) and another.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
Shri Aniket Waghdhare, Advocate for petitioners.
Ms S.S. Jachak, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1 and 2.
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND N.B. SURYAWANSHI, JJ.
DATE : 05/02/2021.
It is the grievance of the petitioners that the
directions issued in Writ Petition No.316/2017 are not
being complied with by the respondents and hence the
petitioners are required to file the present proceedings. In
Writ Petition No.316/2017, the award passed under the
provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956(for short
"the Act of 1956") was sought to be challenged on various
grounds. By the judgment dated 28/03/2019 this Court set
aside the award in respect of the land owned by the
petitioners. The respondents were directed to determine
the amount of compensation payable in respect of the land
owned by the petitioners as per the market value on the
date of taking possession in accordance with Section 3-E of
the Act of 1956. The petitioners assured the Court that they
would co-operate in handing over the possession of their
land as and when they were called upon to do so in writing.
909 cp 345-2019 2/2
2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners
unless the date on which possession of the land is to be
taken by the respondents is known to the petitioners, they
would not be in a position to claim appropriate
compensation. It is thus the contention that the date of
taking possession should be intimated to the petitioners in
advance but the same has not been done.
3. After the notice was issued in the present
proceedings an additional affidavit has been filed by the
Competent Authority in which it has been stated that in
accordance with the provisions of Section 3-E of the Act of
1956, the procedure prescribed would be followed and
within a period of 60 days from the service of notice the
possession of land would be taken.
4. It is thus clear that on issuing notice under Section 3-
E (1) of the Act of 1956, the date when possession would
be taken would be communicated to the petitioners by
issuing notice. Thereafter the petitioners would be free to
make their claim for appropriate compensation.
5. In that view of the matter we find that there is no
wilful breach of the directions issued in the aforesaid writ
petition by the respondents. Hence the contempt petition is
disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE
R.S. Sahare
