Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
VIBHA KANKANWADI, HITEN S.VENEGAVKAR
Bhushan Raosaheb Anbhule – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry for Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners seeking a declaration that the action of the respondent authorities in constructing National Highway No. 222 through the properties of the petitioners situated at Survey Nos. 369/2 and 370/2 of village Kedgaon, Taluka and District Ahilyanagar is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India as well as the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. The petitioners have also sought directions to the respondent authorities to follow the procedure contemplated under Section 3C(2) of the National Highways Act, 1956 on the basis of the objections dated 16.08.2024 submitted by them. In the alternative, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners has orally prayed that the respondent authorities be directed to decide the objections and representations submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law.
2. The petitioners claim to be owners of certain non-agricultural commercial plots particularly described in the memo of petition, situated adjacent to the existing Kalyan–Ahmednagar–Nanded–Nirmal
Partial land acquisition's severance or injurious affection requires objective evidence like maps, valuations, site plans; writ court dismisses without proof if arguments deviate from pleadings; libe....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that land acquisition proceedings can be challenged after the passing of the award and receipt of compensation in exceptional cases falling within ....
Point of Law - Section 3-H (4) of the National Highways Act, 1956, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the amount or any part thereof or to any person to whom the same or any part thereo....
The court emphasized the availability of alternative statutory remedies for seeking enhancement of compensation and the limitations of the writ jurisdiction when an efficacious alternative remedy is ....
Mistaken inclusion of land in acquisition notifications does not automatically grant ownership, and compensation requires assessed possession under relevant laws.
The court affirmed that possession of land for public use requires legal authority and compensation, emphasizing that delay cannot bar just claims for compensation.
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
