Shrikant Dattopant Andurkar v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others
1 wp 9882.2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 99 WRIT PETITION NO.9882 OF 2021 ANNARAO MARUTI JIVANAGE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...
Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Rakhunde Pravin B AGP for Respondents: Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya ...
AND ...
100 WRIT PETITION NO.9883 OF 2021 TAMMA MARUTI JIVANAGE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...
Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Rakhunde Pravin B AGP for Respondents: Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya ...
AND ...
101 WRIT PETITION NO.9884 OF 2021 SHRIKANT DATTOPANT ANDURKAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...
Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Rakhunde Pravin B AGP for Respondents: Mr. S. P. Tiwari ...
AND ...
102 WRIT PETITION NO.9885 OF 2021 GULAB RAMCHANDRA MUDKANNA (DIED) THROUGH LRS RAVINDRA GULAB MUDKANNA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...
Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Rakhunde Pravin B
2 wp 9882.2021 AGP for Respondents: Mrs. M. A. Deshpande ...
AND ...
103 WRIT PETITION NO.9886 OF 2021 RAMCHANDRA SIDRAMAPPA MUDKANNA (DIED) THROUGH LRS MALLINATH RAMCHANDRA MUDKANNA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...
Advocate for Petitioner: Mr. Rakhunde Pravin B AGP for Respondents: Mr. A. R. Kale ...
CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA & R. N. LADDHA, JJ.
DATE:
27th SEPTEMBER, 2021 PER COURT:
1.
Mr. Rakhunde, learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed Applications U/Sec. 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act-1894'). However, the said Applications are rejected only on the ground that Appeals are filed by the State / Acquiring Body and the same are pending, stay is granted.
2.
We have also heard the learned A.G.P. for the respondents.
3 wp 9882.2021 3.
If the Acquiring Body / State has filed Appeals before this Court and stay has been granted to the Judgment of the Reference Court, then certainly, the Special Land Acquisition Officer could not have decided the Applications under Section 28-A of the Act-1894. To that extent, the Special Land Acquisition Officer is justified, however, the Special Land Acquisition Officer could not have rejected the Applications under Section 28-A of the Act-1894. It should have kept it pending.
4.
In view of that, the orders to the extent rejecting the Applications of the petitioners are set aside. The Special Land Acquisition Officer shall keep the said applications pending and decide it after the Appeals are decided by this Court and / or stay is vacated.
5.
With these observations, writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.
[R. N. LADDHA, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] marathe