Back
R. M. JOSHI
Gandharva Dhaneshwar Patil – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Thr. Govt. Pleader, High Court, Mumbai – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(R.M. Joshi, J.) :
As per order dated 2nd August 2024 amendment was not carried out properly, hence, amendment be carried out, in view of order dated 2nd August 2024, forthwith.
2. This Petition takes exception to the order dated 29th January 2024 passed by the Deputy Collector (Rehabilitation), Palghar (Competent Authority), Mumbai Ahmedabad High Speed Rail Project, Vasai, refusing to refer dispute under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation And Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short ‘Act of 2013’) to the Authority under Section 51 of Act.
3. The facts which lead to the filing of the present Petition can be narrated in brief as under:-
The Petitioner and Respondent No.13 and 32 Claim themselves to be the members of the Patil family i.e. heirs of late Pandu Dhondu Patil. Late Pandu was owner of the land bearing Survey No.38/3, 38/6, 51 and 61 situated at Mauje Chandrapada, Taluka-Vasai, District-Palghar. The Petitioner claims that after death of Pandu in the year 1945, the lands were transferred to his legal heirs and Mutation Entry bearing No.1345 was effected in the Revenue Record. Thus properties are claimed to be anc
The court clarified that Section 64 mandates referral only when the award is challenged, while Section 76 allows discretion in referring disputes regarding compensation apportionment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authority's power to review orders and its jurisdiction under the relevant sections of the act were central to the court's decision.
The Land Acquisition Officer lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate title disputes and must refer such matters to the Civil Court for proper adjudication under Sections 10, 18, and 30 of the Land Acquisiti....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reference under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, must pertain to the apportionment of compensation settled under section 11 o....
The Deputy Collector lacked jurisdiction to amend a finalized award under the Land Acquisition Act; disputes on compensation apportionment must be determined by a Civil Court based on the parties' ri....
The Collector is statutorily obligated to refer disputes regarding compensation apportionment to the Court, and failure to do so renders any decision made without jurisdiction.
Disputes regarding compensation apportionment under the MIDC Act must be referred to a judicial authority, not decided by administrative officers, ensuring proper legal process is followed.
when there is a dispute between rival claimants, though not they appeared before the Acquisition Officer, still, they can claim compensation awarded under the Award.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
