Maruti Madhav Patil Through Lrs Govind ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 2 January, 2020

[Cites 1, Cited by 2]

Bombay High Court

Maruti Madhav Patil Through Lrs Govind ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 2 January, 2020

Bench: Rohit B.Deo

                                  -1-

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     WRIT PETITION NO.8416 OF 2018

01 Maruti Madhav Patil, died,
   through L.R.:
   Govind Maruti Patil,
   age: 57 years, Occ: Agri.;

02 Gopal Babarao Patil,
   age: 63 years, Occ: Agri.;

   Both R/o Toramba, Tq.Lohara,
   District Osmanabad.                          Petitioners

       Versus

01 The State of Maharashtra,
   through the Collector,
   Collector Ofce,
   Solapur-Vadodara Highway,
   Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad.

02 The Special Land Acquisition Ofcer
   No.1 and2, Sub Divisional Magistrate
   Ofce, Omerga, Tq. Omerga,
   District Osmanabad.                          Respondents


Mr.V.V.Kabade, advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.S.K.Tambe, AGP for the respondents.


                                CORAM : ROHIT B.DEO, J.

                                DATE    : 02/01/2020


ORAL JUDGMENT :

::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 01:23:12 ::: -2-

1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard fnally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties. 2 This petition is entertained despite the existence of statutory remedy, in view of the glaring facts. 3 The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 25.10.2017, rendered by the Sub Divisional Ofcer and Land Acquisition Ofcer, Omerga, under which the application preferred by the petitioners under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, came to be rejected.

4 Perusal of the order impugned reveals that the rejection is not on merits. It appears that the petitioners, inadvertently and inaccurately referred to Reference Case No.240 of 2005 to base their claim. As a fact, the petitioners ought to have referred to and relied upon the judgment in Reference Case No.238 of 2005. The authority, however, noted that Reference Case No.240 of 2005 is dismissed by the Civil Court and on this short ground, rejected the application under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 01:23:12 ::: -3- 5 I do not consider it appropriate to compel the petitioners to undergo exercise of preferring an appeal. 6 Writ Petition is allowed. The order impugned is quashed and set aside. Section 28-A application is remitted to Respondent No.2 who shall give an opportunity to the petitioners to amend the application appropriately and who shall thereafter decide the application within eight weeks from the date of appearance of the petitioners.

7 The petitioners shall appear before the Respondent No.2 on 20th January, 2020.

8 Rule is made absolute in above terms. No costs.

(ROHIT B.DEO) JUDGE adb ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/01/2020 01:23:12 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bombay High Court