Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.16 seconds)

The Administrator Municipalcommittee ... vs Ramji Lal Bagla And Others on 26 July, 1995

"It is not in dispute that the award in respect of Survey Nos.167, 168/1, 168/2 and 169/2 admeasuring 22.49 acres of Mouza-Bhandewadi was passed on 15th February 1962 and in terms of the averments made in para 2 of the writ petition, its possession was also taken from the land owners including the present petitioners after paying compensation to them. The Prayer made in the petition for restoration of land to the original owner as the land has not been yet put to the purpose for which it was taken, cannot be considered in view of the fact that the petitioners lost the ownership after award was passed, possession was taken and compensation was paid. The law is well settled in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Administrator, Municipal Committee Charkhi Dadri And Another vs. Ramjilal Bagla And Others (1995) 5 Supreme Court Cases 272 and followed by this Court in Ramakant Vithobaji Gaikwad Vs. Government of Maharashtra and Other 2000(4) Maharashtra Law Journal 597 and fairly conceded by Mr. Parchure that such lands vested in the Government after acquisition cannot be restored to the owner or who so ever. In that view of the matter, it is not possible for us to interfere in the matter. Insofar as Civil Application No.1793 of 2010 is concerned we do not propose to say anything except that the contents of the said civil application and the prayer do not and cannot form subject matter of present writ petition.
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 27 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Ramakant Vithobaji Gaikwad vs Government Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 14 September, 2000

"It is not in dispute that the award in respect of Survey Nos.167, 168/1, 168/2 and 169/2 admeasuring 22.49 acres of Mouza-Bhandewadi was passed on 15th February 1962 and in terms of the averments made in para 2 of the writ petition, its possession was also taken from the land owners including the present petitioners after paying compensation to them. The Prayer made in the petition for restoration of land to the original owner as the land has not been yet put to the purpose for which it was taken, cannot be considered in view of the fact that the petitioners lost the ownership after award was passed, possession was taken and compensation was paid. The law is well settled in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Administrator, Municipal Committee Charkhi Dadri And Another vs. Ramjilal Bagla And Others (1995) 5 Supreme Court Cases 272 and followed by this Court in Ramakant Vithobaji Gaikwad Vs. Government of Maharashtra and Other 2000(4) Maharashtra Law Journal 597 and fairly conceded by Mr. Parchure that such lands vested in the Government after acquisition cannot be restored to the owner or who so ever. In that view of the matter, it is not possible for us to interfere in the matter. Insofar as Civil Application No.1793 of 2010 is concerned we do not propose to say anything except that the contents of the said civil application and the prayer do not and cannot form subject matter of present writ petition.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - S K Shah - Full Document
1