Shri. Bhausaheb Deuba Adhava Through Poa Shri. Annasaheb R Khade v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Chief Secretary, Mantrlaya And ORS

1/3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION KANCHAN VINOD MAYEKAR KANCHAN VINOD MAYEKAR Date: 2022.06.24 11:26:47 +0530 WRIT PETITION NO. 7052 OF 2019 Bhausaheb Deuba Adhava, through His Constituted Attorney holder, Annasaheb Ramrao Khade ..... Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Maharashtra & Ors.

..... Respondents Mr.Balasaheb Deshmukh with Mr.Maheshwar A. Parab i/b Vidhat Legal for the Petitioner.

Mr.A.I. Patel, Addl. GP with Mrs.Shruti D. Vyas - "B" Panel Counsel for the Respondent Nos,1, 3 to 8 - State.

Mr.Vijay D. Patil for the Respondent N.2.

CORAM: R. D. DHANUKA AND M.G. SEWLIKAR, JJ.

DATE : 20th JUNE, 2022 P.C:- After arguing the matter for sometime, Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the representation/notice made by his client on 26th February, 2019 to the Competent Authority, SubDivisional Officer is still pending and to be considered. 2.

We accordingly direct the Competent Authority to decide the

2/3 said representation/notice within eight weeks from today. 3.

In view of the issue raised by the petitioner that the award itself is not rendered by the Sub-Divisional Officer and the erstwhile owner of the land has not received any compensation, the Competent Authority shall consider the entire record for the period prior to the date of initiation of the acquisition proceedings, if any, till payment of compensation and then pass an appropriate order on the representation/ notice made by the petitioner.

4.

The order that will be passed by the Competent Authority shall be conveyed to the petitioner within one week from the date of passing order.

5.

If the representation/notice of the petitioner is accepted, consequential reliefs sought by the petitioner shall be granted in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks thereafter and if the representation/notice of the petitioner is rejected, the petitioner would be at liberty to file appropriate proceedings permissible in law.

3/3 6.

This court has not expressed any views on the merits of the said representation made by the petitioner. All contentions of the petitioner are kept open.

7.

Writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.

8.

The parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. [M.G. SEWLIKAR, J.] [R. D. DHANUKA, J.]