Smt. Nirmala Kailashnath Waghdhare v. Dy. Collector, Land Acquisition(General), Nagpur, Special L.A. Officer (Gen.) And ORS.
2025:BHC-NAG:11992-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 622 OF 2025 [Smt. Nirmala Kailashnath Waghdhare vs. Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (General), Nagpur, S.L.A.O. (General), Nagpur and ors.] with WRIT PETITION NO. 623 OF 2025 [Shri. Kailashnath Krishnarao Waghdhare vs. Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition (General), Nagpur, S.L.A.O. (General), Nagpur and ors.] --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. R. D. Bhuibhar, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. I. J. Damle, A.G.P. for the State/respondent nos. 1 and 2 Mr. A. A. Kathane, Advocate for respondent no. 3 CORAM: ANIL L. PANSARE AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ.
DATE : 13-11-2025.
The grievance of the petitioners is that though their land has been not acquired, same finds place in award dated 6-9-2021 passed by respondent no. 1 under Section 3G of the National Highways Act, 1956. Learned Assistant Government Pleader (AGP), on instructions, submits that the part of land has been acquired and compensation was deposited with the competent authority. The petitioners refused to accept the compensation.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have come up with a case that petitioners' land has been never
acquired. He submits that the land was never measured and, therefore, there is no question of acquisition of land.
In context with above and considering what this Court has said in paragraph no. 11 of order dated 7-2-2025, we called upon learned AGP and Mr. A. A. Kathane, learned counsel for the acquiring body to inform us the boundaries of the land which has been allegedly acquired by respondent no. 1. We did not get answers from both.
Thus, it appears that the respondents, who have allegedly acquired land in the year 2005, are not yet sure as to which part of the land belonging to the petitioners has been acquired.
Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 makes a request to keep the matter back to take instructions. Kept back.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE.) Later on Respondent no. 3 tenders reply across the bar. Same is taken on record.
Learned AGP, on instructions, submits that the petitioners' land has been not acquired. The statement is accepted. The petitioners are satisfied with
the statement.
The petitions are accordingly disposed of. Consequences to follow. Since the land of petitioners is not acquired, the respondents shall correct the revenue entries as expeditiously as possible and preferably, within a period of sixteen weeks from today.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE.) wasnik/asmita