{"id":64864,"date":"2011-10-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmanand-shamrao-potdukhe-vs-special-land-acquisition-officer-on-17-october-2011"},"modified":"2016-10-18T18:54:39","modified_gmt":"2016-10-18T13:24:39","slug":"parmanand-shamrao-potdukhe-vs-special-land-acquisition-officer-on-17-october-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmanand-shamrao-potdukhe-vs-special-land-acquisition-officer-on-17-october-2011","title":{"rendered":"Parmanand Shamrao Potdukhe vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 17 October, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Parmanand Shamrao Potdukhe vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 17 October, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: S.A. Bobde, M.N. Gilani<\/div>\n
                                                                                1\n\n             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                 \n                                   NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         \n                               WRIT PETITION  NO. 1010 OF 1992\n\n     1] Parmanand Shamrao Potdukhe,\n\n\n\n\n                                                                        \n     2] Deleted,\n\n     3] Abhay Shamrao Potdukhe,\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n     4] Smt. Shantabai Shantaram Potdukhe,\n                         \n       All residents of Balaji Ward,\n                        \n       Chandrapur.                                                              .....        PETITIONERS\n\n                 ....Versus....\n      \n\n\n     1] Special Land Acquisition Officer,\n   \n\n\n\n        Thermal Power Station-II,\n        Chandrapur,\n\n\n\n\n\n     2] Municipal Council, Chandrapur,\n        through its Chief Officer,\n        Chandrapur,\n\n\n\n\n\n     3] State of Maharashtra, through Secretary,\n        Revenue Department, Mantralaya,\n        Bombay-32,                               ......       RESPONDENTS.\n\n     Mr. H.V. Thakur, Advocate for petitioner,\n     Mrs.   B.H.   Dangre,   Additional   Government   Pleader   for   respondent \n     nos. 1 & 3,\n     Ms. K. Satpute, Advocate for respondent no. 2.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                         ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:51:34 :::\n                                                                                    2\n\n                                          CORAM :   S.A. BOBDE & M.N. GILANI, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                          DATED  :   OCTOBER 17, 2011.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n                                                                            \n     ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.A. BOBDE, J.)\n\n\n\n\n                                                                           \n     1]              Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.  \n\n\n\n\n                                                       \n     2]              The petitioners are owners of Survey No. 34\/3, area 0.41 \n                            \n<\/pre>\n
     ares situated at Mouza Chandrapur, Rayatwari, Patwari Halka No. 8, <\/p>\n
     Bandobust No. 29, Tq. & District Chandrapur.  The land is situated in <\/p>\n
     the area called Ram Nagar.     Acquisition proceedings were initiated <\/p>\n
     under Section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, <\/p>\n
     1966 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) in respect of the said land <\/p>\n
     for the purpose of construction of a primary school.   The adjoining <\/p>\n
     land,   i.e.   Survey   No.   34\/1   was   also   made   the   subject   of   the <\/p>\n
     acquisition for the same purpose.   Apparently, on 4.9.1997 after the <\/p>\n
     award   was   passed,   the   Municipal   Council,   Chandrapur   passed   a <\/p>\n
     Resolution  that it  does  not  wish  to proceed  with  the  acquisition of <\/p>\n
     adjoining   Survey   No.   34\/1   admeasuring   2387   sq.   meters   and <\/p>\n
     demanded a sum of Rs. 5.32 Lakhs back from the Land Acquisition <\/p>\n
                                                                            ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:51:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
     Officer who had been earlier given that amount for the acquisition of <\/p>\n
     land.     Relying   on   this   Resolution,   Shri   H.V.   Thakur,   the   learned <\/p>\n
     Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the Municipal Council has <\/p>\n
     abandoned the acquisition in respect of the petitioners’ land also, i.e. <\/p>\n
     Survey No. 34\/3 and the respondents are, therefore, not entitled to <\/p>\n
     take over possession of the land, which according to the petitioners, <\/p>\n
     has not yet vested in them.\n<\/p>\n
     3]           It is not possible to accept this contention.  The Resolution <\/p>\n
     does not state anywhere that the respondents do not wish to acquire <\/p>\n
     the petitioners’ land which is Survey No. 34\/3.   The Resolution only <\/p>\n
     refers to Survey No. 34\/1 in respect of which the Municipal Council <\/p>\n
     decided   to   abandon   acquisition.       Shri   H.V.   Thakur,   the   learned <\/p>\n
     Counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that the Resolution <\/p>\n
     shows that the respondents have demanded back the entire amount <\/p>\n
     of Rs.5.32 Lakhs which was meant for acquisition of both the lands, <\/p>\n
     i.e. adjoining land Survey No. 34\/1 and the petitioners’ land Survey <\/p>\n
     No. 34\/3 and, therefore, the respondent Municipal Council must be <\/p>\n
                                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:51:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
     taken to have abandoned the acquisition in respect of the petitioners’ <\/p>\n
     land also.\n<\/p>\n
     4]           We find that merely because the Resolution demands the <\/p>\n
     entire sum back from the Land Acquisition Officer, it does not change <\/p>\n
     the   main   thrust   of   the   Resolution   and   that   is   that   the   Municipal <\/p>\n
     Council has resolved to abandon the acquisition of Survey No. 34\/1 <\/p>\n
     only which is clearly mentioned therein.  Indeed, it was contended on <\/p>\n
     behalf   of   the   Municipal   Council,   Chandrapur   by   Ms.   Satpute,   the <\/p>\n
     learned Counsel that the amount of Rs.5.32 Lakhs is mentioned by <\/p>\n
     mistake.     We,   therefore,   reject   this   contention   on   behalf   of   the <\/p>\n
     petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
     5]           It   was   next   contended   on   behalf   of   the   petitioners   that <\/p>\n
     though the stated purpose of acquiring the petitioners’ land was for <\/p>\n
     construction of a primary school, in the present Draft Development <\/p>\n
     Plan published in April, 2011, the reservation of the land is shown for <\/p>\n
     the purpose of dispensary which is not the same purpose for which it <\/p>\n
                                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:51:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
     was   acquired,   namely,   for   a   primary   school.     According   to   the <\/p>\n
     petitioners,   as   a   matter   of   law,   the   stated   public   purpose   of   the <\/p>\n
     acquisition  must continue  to exist till   the  award  is  passed  and the <\/p>\n
     possession is taken and since the Municipal Council has evinced an <\/p>\n
     intention to reserve the land in question for another public purpose, <\/p>\n
     i.e. for dispensary, the acquisition is vitiated.\n<\/p>\n
     6]           It is not possible to accept this contention since the public <\/p>\n
     purpose may undergo a change because of change in the need of the <\/p>\n
     town or city and yet the purpose for which the land is acquired may <\/p>\n
     remain a public purpose.   In any case, such a contention has been <\/p>\n
     rejected by the Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Greater <\/p>\n
     Bombay   .vs.   Industrial   Development   Investment   Co.   Pvt.   Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
     and others reported in (1996) 11 SCC 501   wherein in paragraph <\/p>\n
     no.22 the Supreme Court has observed as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
             “22.   It   is   thus   well-settled   legal   position   that   the   land <\/p>\n
             acquired for a public purpose may be used for another <\/p>\n
             public purpose on account of change or surplus thereof. <\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             The acquisition validly made does not become invalid by <\/p>\n
                                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:51:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                          6<\/span><\/p>\n
      change of the user or change of the user in the Scheme <\/p>\n
      as per the approved plan.  It is seen that the land in Block <\/p>\n
      ‘H’ which was intended to be acquired for original public <\/p>\n
      purpose, namely, the construction of Sewage Purification <\/p>\n
      Plant,   though   was   shifted   to   Block   ‘A’,   the   land   was <\/p>\n
      earmarked   for   residential,   commercial-cum-residential <\/p>\n
      purposes or partly for residential purpose etc.   It is the <\/p>\n
      case of the appellant that the Corporation intends to use <\/p>\n
      the land acquired for construction of the staff quarters for <\/p>\n
      its employees.   It is true that there was no specific plan <\/p>\n
      as such placed on the record, but so long as the land is <\/p>\n
      used   by   the   Corporation   for   any   designated   public <\/p>\n
      purpose, namely, residential-cum-commercial purpose for <\/p>\n
      its   employees,   the   later   public   purpose   remains   to   be <\/p>\n
      valid public purpose in the light of the change of the user <\/p>\n
      of the land as per the revised approved plan.   It is true <\/p>\n
      that in the original scheme the residential quarters for the <\/p>\n
      staff   working   in   the   Sewage   Purification   Plant   were <\/p>\n
      intended   to   be   constructed   and   the   same   purpose   is <\/p>\n
      sought   to   be   served   by   the   acquisition   of   the   land   by <\/p>\n
      using the land in Block “A”.   Nonetheless the acquired <\/p>\n
      land   could   be   used   by   the   Corporation   for   residential-\n<\/p>\n
      cum-commercial   purpose   for   its   employees   other   than <\/p>\n
      those working in the Sewage Purification Plant.  It would <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:51:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                          7<\/span><\/p>\n
      not,   therefore,   be   necessary   that   the   original   public <\/p>\n
      purpose should continue to exist till the award was made <\/p>\n
      and   possession   taken.     Nor   is   it   the   duty   of   the   Land <\/p>\n
      Acquisition   Officer   to   see   whether   the   public   purpose <\/p>\n
      continues to subsist.   The award and possession taken <\/p>\n
      do not become invalid or ultra vires the power of the Land <\/p>\n
      Acquisition   Officer.     On   taking   possession,   it   became <\/p>\n
      vested   in   BMC   free   from   all   encumbrances   including <\/p>\n
      tenancy   rights   alleged   to   be   held   by   the   respondents.\n<\/p>\n
      Possession and title validly vesting in the State, becomes <\/p>\n
      absolute under Section 10 of the Act and thereafter the <\/p>\n
      proceedings under the Act do not become illegal and the <\/p>\n
      land cannot be revested in the owner.  Only before taking <\/p>\n
      possession, the Government can  withdraw from inquiry <\/p>\n
      under Sections 45(1) of the Act or the High Court under <\/p>\n
      Article 226 of the Constitution may quash it on the legal <\/p>\n
      and valid grounds.  If the award under Section 11-A was <\/p>\n
      not   made   within   two   years   from   the   date   of   the <\/p>\n
      publication   of   the   declaration   under   Section   6,   as <\/p>\n
      enjoined under Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, <\/p>\n
      whether the notification under Section 4(1) would lapse.\n<\/p>\n
      This Court in Satendra Prasad Jain v. State of U.P.<\/a> had <\/p>\n
      held that after the land stood vested in the State, even if <\/p>\n
      the   authorities   failed   to   comply   with   the   statutory <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:51:34 :::<\/span>
\n                                                                               8<\/span><\/p>\n
           requirement, it does not have the effect on the vesting of <\/p>\n
           land in the State.  Thereby the notification under Section <\/p>\n
           4(1)   and   the  declaration   under   Section  6   do   not  stand <\/p>\n
           lapsed.  The same view was reiterated by another Bench <\/p>\n
           in Awadh Bihari Yadav v. State of Bihar.  The High Court, <\/p>\n
           therefore, was not right in exercise of power under Article <\/p>\n
           226   of   the   Constitution   in   granting   declarations   as <\/p>\n
           mentioned   in   the   beginning   or   in   making   order   of <\/p>\n
           injunction against the appellants pending writ petitions.  It <\/p>\n
           is an equally settled law that a tenant cannot challenge <\/p>\n
           the   notification   under   Section   4   and   declaration   under <\/p>\n
           Section   6   of   the   Act   when   the   landlord   himself   had <\/p>\n
           accepted the award and received compensation.”\n<\/p>\n
     7]         In   the   result,   there   is   no   merit   in   this   petition   which   is <\/p>\n
     hereby dismissed.   Rule stands discharged with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                     JUDGE.                                                                JUDGE.\n     J.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                       ::: Downloaded on - 09\/06\/2013 17:51:34 :::<\/span>\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Parmanand Shamrao Potdukhe vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 17 October, 2011 Bench: S.A. Bobde, M.N. Gilani 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 1010 OF 1992 1] Parmanand Shamrao Potdukhe, 2] Deleted, 3] Abhay Shamrao Potdukhe, 4] Smt. Shantabai Shantaram Potdukhe, All residents […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-64864","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nParmanand Shamrao Potdukhe vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 17 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmanand-shamrao-potdukhe-vs-special-land-acquisition-officer-on-17-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Parmanand Shamrao Potdukhe vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 17 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmanand-shamrao-potdukhe-vs-special-land-acquisition-officer-on-17-october-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-18T13:24:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parmanand-shamrao-potdukhe-vs-special-land-acquisition-officer-on-17-october-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parmanand-shamrao-potdukhe-vs-special-land-acquisition-officer-on-17-october-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Parmanand Shamrao Potdukhe vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 17 October, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-18T13:24:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parmanand-shamrao-potdukhe-vs-special-land-acquisition-officer-on-17-october-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1275,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parmanand-shamrao-potdukhe-vs-special-land-acquisition-officer-on-17-october-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parmanand-shamrao-potdukhe-vs-special-land-acquisition-officer-on-17-october-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parmanand-shamrao-potdukhe-vs-special-land-acquisition-officer-on-17-october-2011\",\"name\":\"Parmanand Shamrao Potdukhe vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 17 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-10-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-18T13:24:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parmanand-shamrao-potdukhe-vs-special-land-acquisition-officer-on-17-october-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parmanand-shamrao-potdukhe-vs-special-land-acquisition-officer-on-17-october-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/parmanand-shamrao-potdukhe-vs-special-land-acquisition-officer-on-17-october-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Parmanand Shamrao Potdukhe vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 17 October, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Parmanand Shamrao Potdukhe vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 17 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmanand-shamrao-potdukhe-vs-special-land-acquisition-officer-on-17-october-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Parmanand Shamrao Potdukhe vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 17 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmanand-shamrao-potdukhe-vs-special-land-acquisition-officer-on-17-october-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-18T13:24:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmanand-shamrao-potdukhe-vs-special-land-acquisition-officer-on-17-october-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmanand-shamrao-potdukhe-vs-special-land-acquisition-officer-on-17-october-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Parmanand Shamrao Potdukhe vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 17 October, 2011","datePublished":"2011-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-18T13:24:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmanand-shamrao-potdukhe-vs-special-land-acquisition-officer-on-17-october-2011"},"wordCount":1275,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmanand-shamrao-potdukhe-vs-special-land-acquisition-officer-on-17-october-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmanand-shamrao-potdukhe-vs-special-land-acquisition-officer-on-17-october-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmanand-shamrao-potdukhe-vs-special-land-acquisition-officer-on-17-october-2011","name":"Parmanand Shamrao Potdukhe vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 17 October, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-10-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-18T13:24:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmanand-shamrao-potdukhe-vs-special-land-acquisition-officer-on-17-october-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmanand-shamrao-potdukhe-vs-special-land-acquisition-officer-on-17-october-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/parmanand-shamrao-potdukhe-vs-special-land-acquisition-officer-on-17-october-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Parmanand Shamrao Potdukhe vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 17 October, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64864","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=64864"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64864\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64864"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64864"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64864"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}