Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.S. Sonak, Jitendra Jain, JJ.
Mr Kashinath Dunda Vishe – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(per M.S. Sonak, J.)
1. Heard Mr Sabban for the petitioners, Mr Chavan for respondents 2 and 3 and Mr Deolekar learned AGP for the respondent-State.
2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.
3. Mr Sabban points out that the first petitioner has expired, and the second petitioner is the brother of the first petitioner. The third petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner’s deceased brother. Mr Sabban craves leave to delete the first petitioner from the cause title.
4. Accordingly, leave is granted. A necessary amendment is to be carried out in the cause title forthwith. Reverification is dispensed with.
5. The petitioners were the owners of the property admeasuring H.09=35=06 Ares surveyed under No.505/A, Village - Bedisgaon, Taluka- Shahapur, District – Thane (said property). In 1976-77, the respondents took possession of the petitioners’ property and constructed a minor percolation tank despite opposition from the petitioners. By communications dated 10 May 2011, 04 June 2011, 19 July 2011 and 14 July 2011, which have been placed on record by the petitioners, respondents 2 and 3 informed the
Delay and laches cannot bar compensation claims for land taken without due process, as constitutional rights must be upheld.
The duty to compensate upon land acquisition is a constitutional safeguard, ensuring no individual is deprived of property without legal due process and fair compensation, embodied in Article 300A.
Forcible dispossession of property without due process violates constitutional rights; delay and laches are not applicable in cases of continuing cause of action.
(1) State cannot shield itself behind ground of delay and laches in such a situation – There cannot be a limitation to doing justice.(2) Acquisition of land – Nobody can be deprived of liberty or pro....
Landowners are entitled to due process and compensation for property utilized by the State without formal acquisition, as under Article 300A of the Constitution.
It is well-settled that under Article 226, power of High Court to issue an appropriate writ is discretionary.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the right to compensation for expropriation of property is guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, and delay in seeking....
The court emphasized that challenging the acquisition proceeding through a writ petition, even with a delay of few months, is fatal and cannot be entertained. The court also highlighted the principle....
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
