Suneeta D. Ambekar And Ors vs Siddhiviyanayk Ganpati Temple Trust ... on 10 January, 2020

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Suneeta D. Ambekar And Ors vs Siddhiviyanayk Ganpati Temple Trust ... on 10 January, 2020

Bench: G.S. Kulkarni

                                                1                   12-LAR 7-04

psv
                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                         LAND ACQUISITION REFERENCE NO.7 OF 2004

      The Special Land Acquisition Officer (MHADA)
             And
      Sunita D. Ambekar & Ors.                     ..Claimants
             And
      Shree Siddhivinayak Ganapati Temple Trust    ..Acquiring Body

                                          AND
                              CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.172 OF 2007
                                          AND
                              CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.1617 OF 2016
                                          -----

      Mr.P.L. Mahadik for Claimant No.2.
      Mr.Yatin Shah for Claimant No.3.
      Mr.Vivek Walawalkar i/b. Mr.Sameer Bhalekar for Claimant No.5.
      Mr.Makhija with Mr.Surana for Acquiring Body.
      Ms.Jyoti Chavan, AGP for State/SLAO.
                                          ----

                                     CORAM :        G.S. KULKARNI, J.

                                     DATE   :       10th JANUARY, 2020

      P.C.:

The contention of Ms.Chavan, learned AGP for SLAO is that earlier an affidavit of evidence was filed in LAR No.4 of 2005 and the same was later on withdrawn as the said witness was not available for deposition. Learned Counsel for the claimant has referred to an order dated 15 July 2016 passed by this Court (S.C. Gupte, J.) whereby this Court had directed that LAR Nos.4 of 2005 and 5 of 2005 be clubbed along with LAR No.7 of 2004 and evidence led in LAR No.7 of 2004 be treated as common evidence in other two LARs. The said order reads thus:-

" LAR Nos.4 of 2005 and 5 of 2005 are directed to be clubbed alongwith LAR No.7 of 2004. Evidence led in LAR No.7 of 2004 be treated as common evidence in the two LARs noted above.

::: Uploaded on - 14/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 13:39:55 :::

2 12-LAR 7-04 2 Office is directed to make available record and proceedings, including notes of evidence recorded earlier in the LAR No.7 of 2004 for the use of the Commissioner. Copies of the record shall also be made available to the parties on payment of charges."

2. On perusal of the order dated 3 February 2010 passed by this Court (R.V. More, J.) marking the documents, it can also be seen from paragraph 5 that the claimant in LAR No.7 of 2005 has filed an additional compilation of original documents and the said documents were marked. It could be seen that the documents as referred therein are marked in evidence. As stated on behalf of the claimant in LAR No.7 of 2004 a fresh affidavit of evidence of Mr.Deepak Shetty on behalf of claimant No.3 was placed on record. As noted from the earlier order the witness of claimant No.3 is stated to be cross- examined on behalf of the SLAO. Surprisingly I am told that the witness of claimant No.3 is being cross-examined on behalf of SLAO. However, I do not intend to delve on this issue at this stage of the proceedings. As the matter is at the stage of recording of evidence, let the same be completed. All contentions of the parties will be taken into consideration at the time of final hearing of the LARs.

3. Considering the above order passed by this Court, it will be appropriate that whatever cross-examination is in progress, let the same be completed within two weeks from today and report of Commissioner be placed on record so that the reference can be added to the list of the references for final hearing. Accordingly, stand over to 31 January 2020.

[G.S. KULKARNI, J.] ::: Uploaded on - 14/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2020 13:39:55 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Bombay High Court