Meenakshi Balaso Magdum And ORS v. G.B. Industries Reg Partnership Firm Throu. Its Partners And ORS

Vidya Amin

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 16858 OF 2024 Meenakshi Balaso Magdum & Ors.

... Petitioners

Versus

G.B. Industries Reg. Partnership Firm, through its partners & Ors.

...Respondents

Mr. R.M. Haridas a/w. Mr. Prasad P. Kulkarni, Ananda Chavan and Somnath Thengal for the petitioners.

Mr. Rajan S. Pawar, AGP for the State/respondent nos. 2, 3 and 5. Ms. Kanchan Phatak i/b. Mr. Nitin Deshpande for respondent no. 4. _______________________

CORAM:

G. S. KULKARNI & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.

Date :

_______________________ PC:

1.

We are informed by Mr. Haridas, learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent nos. 1A and 1B have filed a Writ Petition in this Court raising issues, similar to the subject matter of the present proceedings, namely, the acquisition of the land of the ownership of the petitioner for the Kolhapur Airport.

2.

The case of the petitioner is that respondent nos. 1A and 1B were licencees of the petitioner under a Leave and Licence Agreement, hence they would not have any legal right of the nature of ownership or otherwise except what the licence would confer. His contention is that the Collector,

Kolhapur/respondent no. 2 as also the Competent Authority/respondent no. 3 are playing at the hands of respondent no. 1 and are not proceeding with the acquisition giving some credence to the case of these respondents although not explicitly. This despite a specific order passed by the Civil Court in a Civil Suit, which does not recognize any legal right of respondent nos. 1A and 1B. 3.

Prima facie we see substance in the contentions as urged on behalf of the petitioners. We need to hear respondent nos. 1A and 1B, as to whether merely on a Leave and Licence Agreement any right questioning acquisition or any right in the compensation can at all be claimed by respondent no. 1A and 1B and that too after the substantive relief in this regard having being rejected or not granted by the Civil Court.

4.

Considering such conspectus, we are more concerned with the approach of the Collector as also the Competent Authority, Sub-Divisional officer Karveer as to why the land acquisition proceedings are delayed to the prejudice of the petitioner.

5.

Issue notice to respondent nos. 1A and 1B, returnable on 28 November, 2024. Learned advocate for the petitioners is permitted to serve respondent nos. 1A and 1B by all permissible modes and place on record an affidavit of service before the returnable date. If despite service respondent nos. 1A and 1B

are not represented on the adjourned date of hearing, the Court shall proceed to hear the appearing parties considering that respondent nos. 1A and 1B are not interested to contest the present proceedings. 6.

Accordingly, list this petition on 28 November, 2024 (H.O.B.) along with Writ Petition (St.) No. 27634 of 2024 filed by respondent nos. 1A and 1B.

7.

Let copy of this order be also forwarded by the learned AGP to the concerned officer.

(ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI , J.) Signed by: Vidya S. Amin Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 26/11/2024 12:47:13