Bombay High CourtWP/5100/2007disposed offdismissed for default

Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation, Jalgaon Thr Cheif Engineer v. Ashok Kapurchand Pawar

2016-06-16Hon'Ble Shri Justice S V Gangapurwala,Hon'Ble Shri Justice K. K. Sonawane3 pages

1 wp 5099.07

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5099 OF 2007 Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation, Jalgaon through its Chief Engineer .. Petitioner

Versus

Sau. Tagibai Sangaji Naik and another .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5100 OF 2007 Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation, Jalgaon through its Chief Engineer .. Petitioner

Versus

Ashok Kapurchand Pawar and another .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5101 OF 2007 Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation, Jalgaon through its Chief Engineer .. Petitioner

Versus

Pandu Mohan Pawar and another .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5102 OF 2007 Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation, Jalgaon through its Chief Engineer .. Petitioner

Versus

Rama Rupa Naik and another .. Respondents

2 wp 5099.07 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5103 OF 2007 Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation, Jalgaon through its Chief Engineer .. Petitioner

Versus

Dagadu Mohan Pawar and another .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5104 OF 2007 Tapi Irrigation Development Corporation, Jalgaon through its Chief Engineer .. Petitioner

Versus

Bharmal Mohan Pawar and another .. Respondents Shri Mahesh S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner in all matters.

Shri A. B. Kale, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 in all matters.

Shri S. M. Ganachari, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 2 in all matters.

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND K. K. SONAWANE, JJ.

DATE : 16TH JUNE, 2016.

PER COURT :

We have heard Mr. Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Present writ petitions are filed on the premise that in proceedings U/Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the present petitioner and acquiring body was not made party.

3 wp 5099.07 2.

The learned Assistant Government Pleader states that, against the award passed by the Reference Court, State has already filed appeals and the same are pending. 3.

As appeals are already filed against the award passed by the Reference Court, the present petitioner can make appropriate applications in the said pending appeals. 4.

The writ petitions as such are disposed of with aforesaid observations. It is made clear that, we have not considered other merits of contentions of respective parties. No costs. Rule discharged.

[ K. K. SONAWANE, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/June 16