Vitthal Mojiram Sulane And ORS v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

(1) 92-wp-6678-2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 92 WRIT PETITION NO.6678 OF 2019 VITTHAL MOJIRAM SULANE AND ORS ..PETITIONERS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ..RESPONDENTS ...

Mr. Dhananjay K. Thote, Advocate for the Petitioners.

Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP for Respondents-State.

...

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

DATED : 27th JANUARY, 2020.

PER COURT:- 1.

Mr. Thote, learned counsel for petitioners submits that the multiplier is wrongly applied of 1.5. The multiplier ought to have been 2. The land of petitioners was situated at Nidhona. The same is in rural area. The learned counsel submits that even Section 30 has not been applied.

2.

As far as the multiplier is concerned, it appears that the land of petitioners was included in the Regional plan. In view of that, as per Notification dated 26.05.2015, the multiplier of 1.5 would be relevant and proper.

3.

It is submitted that the possession is taken in the year 2001. However, Notification under Section 4 has been issued in the year 2013.

(2) 92-wp-6678-2019 4.

In that even, petitioners can claim rental compensation. The petitioners may file an application for rental compensation before respondent no.3. If such an application is filed, respondent no.3 shall decide the same on its own merits, after hearing all parties concerned, expeditiously and preferably within a period of nine (09) months from the date of receipt of application.

5.

The petitioners may take steps with regard to the quantum of compensation as may be permissible under law.

6.

Writ petition accordingly disposed of. No costs.

(SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA) JUDGE JUDGE Devendra/January-2020