Gorakh Bhaurao Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 5127 Bom

                                     1              32-wp 4956-2021+.odt



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        32 WRIT PETITION NO. 4956 OF 2021

 Gorakh Bhaurao Pawar                                            .. Petitioner

          Versus

 The State of Maharashtra and others                             .. Respondents

 Mr. Kiran D. Jadhav, Advocate for the Petitioner.
 Mr. S. B. Yawalkar, Addl. G. P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
 Mr. Sameer Joshi, Advocate for Respondent No. 4.

                        34 WRIT PETITION NO. 4958 OF 2021

 Vikram Pundlikrao Thale
 and others                                                      .. Petitioners

          Versus

 The State of Maharashtra and others                             .. Respondents

 Mr. Kiran D. Jadhav, Advocate for the Petitioners.
 Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, A. G. P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
 Mr. Sameer Joshi, Advocate for Respondent No. 4.

                        60 WRIT PETITION NO. 4985 OF 2021

 Uddhav Gajanan Pawar                                            .. Petitioner

          Versus

 The State of Maharashtra and others                             .. Respondents

 Mr. Kiran D. Jadhav, Advocate for the Petitioner.
 Mr. P. N. Kutti, A. G. P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
 Mr. Sameer Joshi, Advocate for Respondent No. 4.

                               CORAM :   S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
                                         SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

                               DATED :    22nd March, 2021.


                                                                              1 of 2





                                        2            32-wp 4956-2021+.odt


 PER COURT:-

 .        At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners leave to

 file documents is granted.

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Sub

Divisional Officer is not deciding the proposal for compensation, nor is

referring it to the District Court.

3. According to the learned counsel for respondent No. 4 the

petitioners have to file claim for compensation before the District

Court. The Sub Divisional Officer has no jurisdiction. It is for the

petitioners to refer the matter to the District Court.

4. The learned counsel for respondent No. 4 seeks time to place on

record the judgments of the Apex Court and this Court.

5. The learned A.G.P. accepts notice for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

Mr. Joshi, learned counsel accepts notice for respondent No. 4.

6. At the request of the respondents, stand over to 14.06.2021.

 ( SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI )                         ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA )
         JUDGE                                              JUDGE

 P.S.B.



                                                                              2 of 2