DHANANJAY S/O LAXMAN MULEY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Dhananjay S/O Laxman Muley
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Click here to view full judgement.
B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. -
(1.)MEMBERS of Muley family have approached this Court in these two petitions with contention that acquisition proceedings initiated by respondent No.3Municipal Council, Akola (now, Municipal Corporation) and undertaken by respondent No.2Special Land Acquisition Officer in relation to plot No.33/1, Sheet No. 40A situated at Ward No.27, Akola have lapsed. The State Government is respondent No.1 while Special Land Acquisition Officer is respondent No.2 in both the matters. Chief Officer of Municipal Council is respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No. 1869 of 1998 while Municipal Council is respondent No.3 in Writ Petition No. 789 of 2001. One of the tenants in the property sought to be acquired namely Sharad Vinayak Dixit has been permitted to intervene on 13/8/2002 in Writ Petition No. 789 of 2001. Civil Application No. 3938 of 2000 moved by very same person in Writ Petition No. 1869 of 1998 is still pending and is to be considered at the stage of final hearing. In Writ Petition No. 1869 of 1998, after coming into force of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act of 2013"), the petitioners have moved civil application No. 1072 of 2014 seeking final disposal of the petitions urging that in the light of provisions of Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, the proceedings have lapsed. The proposed intervenor has filed reply thereto and with that reply has also placed on record a photo copy of certified copy of the sale deed executed by all the petitioners before this Court in favour of one Manoj Mohanlal Bilala on 07/6/2012. The Municipal Corporation has filed reply opposing C.A. No. 1072 of 2014 on 24/7/2014. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed civil application 240 of 2015 on 10/02/2015 seeking leave to amend the petition basically to bring on record lapsing of reservation in the light of Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013.
(2.)IN Writ Petition No.1869 of 1998 on 21/02/2001 this Court has allowed civil application No.910 of 2001 and as the writ petition was admitted for final hearing, the possession of the petitioners over the subject property has been protected. Similar interim order has also been granted while admitting Writ Petition No. 789 of 2001 on 13/3/2001.
(3.)IN this background, we have heard Advocate Shri Mehadia and Advocate Shri Haque for the respective petitioners, learned A.G.P. for respondents No. 1 and 2, Advocate Shri S. V. Sohoni for Municipal Corporation, Akola and Advocate Shri Parchure for the tenantSharad.
At this stage it is necessary to note that Advocate Shri Mehadia in W.P. No.1869 of 1998 has strongly opposed the prayer for intervention by said Sharad urging that being tenant, he cannot step into dispute of the present nature. He also points out that grant of prayer to intervene in W.P. No.789 of 2001 by itself cannot be held to be decisive in this situation.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.