Smt. Kantabai Moreshwar Barai vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 9294 Bom

2023:BHC-NAG:13278-DB


               J.948.wp.8084.22.odt                                           1/4


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


                               WRIT PETITION NO.8084 OF 2022

               1.         Smt. Kantabai Moreshwar Barai
                          Aged about - 57 years, Occupation - Housewife,
                          R/o. Plot No.96, Wardha Road,
                          Near Hanuman Mandir,
                          At Khapri (Railway), Khapri,
                          District Nagpur

               2.         Shri Tushar Moreshwar Barai
                          Aged about 32 years,
                          Occupation - Service,

               3.         Shri Rahul Moreshwar Barai
                          Aged about - 30 years,
                          Occupation- Business
                          Both the petitioner 2 & 3 are
                          R/o. At post Khapri (Railway),
                          Tah - Nagpur,
                          District Nagpur - 441108
                                                                   ...PETITIONERS
                                             VERSUS
               1.         The State of Maharashtra,
                          through Collector (Rehabilitation),
                          Collector Office, Civil Lines,
                          Nagpur

               2.         Maharashtra Airport Development
                          Company Ltd.
                          through Dy. Collector (Rehabilitation)
                          Central Facility Building,
                          B-Wing (North), 1st Floor,
                          MIHAN SEZ, Khapri (Rly)
                          Nagpur - 440408
 J.948.wp.8084.22.odt                                                  2/4




3.         Maharashtra Airport Development
           Company Ltd.
           through Chief Engineer,
           Central Facility Building,
           B-Wing (North), 1st Floor,
           MIHAN SEZ, Khapri (Rly)
           Nagpur - 440408

4.         Dy. Collector (Land Acquisition No.3)
           Vidarbha Irrigation Development
           Corporation, Nagpur
                                                        ...RESPONDENTS
_______________________________________________________
           Mr. Anand Parchure, Advocate for the petitioners.
           Ms T.H. Khan, Assistant Government Pleader for the
           respondent Nos.1 and 4/State.
           Mr. S.Y. Deopujari, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
_______________________________________________________

                  CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE &
                          URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.

                  DATED    : SEPTEMBER 05, 2023


ORAL JUDGMENT (PC)

RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with

the consent of learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Mr. Parchure, learned Counsel for the petitioners, admits that

petitioner Nos.2 and 3 do not have any document to indicate their right

or title to plot No.3 or, for that matter, any construction made J.948.wp.8084.22.odt 3/4

thereupon, which is styled as house No.1364/1, which is claimed to have

been constructed on the land of plot No.3 in an unauthorised layout on

the land of Survey No.185/1, Mouza Khapri (railway). The entire land

of Survey No.185/1 has been acquired by respondent No.4 for

respondent Nos.2 and 3 in respect of which it is an admitted position

that the compensation for the land was granted to Gurudatta

Cooperative Housing Society, Nagpur, who had laid the unauthorized

layout. In respect of the claim of having made an unauthorized

construction, i.e. House No.1364/1 petitioner No.1 has already been

granted compensation of Rs.11,98,992/- (pg 28 and 31). Now a claim is

being raised for the grant of a plot to each of the petitioners in lieu of

the aforesaid acquisition, by claiming the benefit of a Rehabilitation

Scheme.

3. Mr. Deopujari, learned Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3

vehemently opposes the contention and submits that the petitioners are

not entitled to anything for the reason that the compensation for the

acquisition of land has already been granted to Gurudatta Cooperative

Housing Society, Nagpur, apart from which the ex gratia payment for the

alleged illegal construction of House No.1364/1 has already been

received by petitioner No.1, and therefore, there is no question of

rehabilitation policy being applicable to her as no land has been J.948.wp.8084.22.odt 4/4

acquired from her. It is also contended that on account of the acquisition

of the land of Survey No.81/1 which stood in the name of Moreshwar

Barai and his brother, and so also House No.452 in the present Gaothan,

petitioner No.1 alone would be entitled to one plot in the rehabilitation

scheme. It is, therefore, submitted that the claim which is now being

made for rehabilitation policy being made applicable to petitioner Nos.2

and 3 is clearly without any merits.

4. Since it is an admitted position by Mr. Parchure, learned

Counsel for the petitioners that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 do not have any

document of title to indicate ownership of any land or structure in the

affected zone, there cannot be any question of making the policy of

rehabilitation applicable to them. We, therefore, do not find any reason

to entertain the petition on this ground on behalf of all the petitioners.

5. The petition is therefore dismissed. No costs.

6. Rule is discharged.

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) (AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

Signed by: Mrs. Divya Baldwa *Divya Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 07/09/2023 10:38:06