Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ashok Kumar Sable Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Ashok Kumar Sable vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Nov 30, 2012
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1042065

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ashok Kumar Sable

Advocate Shri. Sankalp Kochar

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

.....writ in the nature of mandamus directing the authorities of the respondents to reconsider the location of land for construction of towers and poles for sarni power house and its new unit so as exclude the land of the petitioner in terms of section 17 of the indian telegraph act 1985. in alternate to it prayer for appropriate direction to the respondent authorities to ascertain and grant full compensation for the losses suffered by the petitioner due to construction of sarni power house and erection of towers and poles through the land of the petitioner and pay him the same. apart this, additional prayer for appropriate direction to the respondent authorities not to enter the land of the petitioner without ascertaining and granting compensation to the petitioner for the losses suffered by him. initially the case was argued for admission and allowing the petition but in view of pendency of the representation of the petitioner, ann. p-6 before the authorities of the respondents, on making certain query on which instead to argue further, petitioner's counsel prays to dispose of this petition with appropriate direction to respondents- authorities to consider and decide the aforesaid representation, ann. p-6 with speaking order in time bond schedule. the state's counsel did not have any objection in disposing of the petition on the aforesaid limited prayer of the petitioner's counsel. in the aforesaid circumstances instead to admit this petition or issuing any notice to the other side, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the authorities of the respondents to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner, ann. p-6 with speaking order under his intimation within 30 days from the date of submitting the certified copy of this order alongwith copy of the petition and annexures in the office of its authority by the petitioner. the petitioner is directed to inform about this order to all authorities of the respondents alongwith.....

Full Judgment

Writ Petition No.19184/2012 30.11.2012 Shri Sankalp Kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, learned Govt.

Adv for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

Heard on the question of admission.

The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the authorities of the respondents to reconsider the location of land for construction of towers and poles for Sarni Power House and its new Unit so as exclude the land of the petitioner in terms of Section 17 of the Indian Telegraph Act 1985.

In alternate to it prayer for appropriate direction to the respondent authorities to ascertain and grant full compensation for the losses suffered by the petitioner due to construction of Sarni Power House and erection of towers and poles through the land of the petitioner and pay him the same.

Apart this, additional prayer for appropriate direction to the respondent authorities not to enter the land of the petitioner without ascertaining and granting compensation to the petitioner for the losses suffered by him.

Initially the case was argued for admission and allowing the petition but in view of pendency of the representation of the petitioner, Ann.

P-6 before the authorities of the respondents, on making certain query on which instead to argue further, petitioner's counsel prays to dispose of this petition with appropriate direction to respondents- authorities to consider and decide the aforesaid representation, Ann.

P-6 with speaking order in time bond schedule.

The State's counsel did not have any objection in disposing of the petition on the aforesaid limited prayer of the petitioner's counsel.

In the aforesaid circumstances instead to admit this petition or issuing any notice to the other side, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the authorities of the respondents to consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner, Ann.

P-6 with speaking order under his intimation within 30 days from the date of submitting the certified copy of this order alongwith copy of the petition and Annexures in the office of its authority by the petitioner.

The petitioner is directed to inform about this order to all authorities of the respondents alongwith aforesaid papers within five days from the date of obtaining the certified copy of this order.

Apart this, the respondents authorities are directed that on consideration, if the case of the petitioner is found fit for extending the benefit as prayed by him or any of them, the same be extended to him.

Considering the prayer of the State's Counsel the District Magistrate is directed to extend the opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

In view of the aforesaid premises it is expected from the authorities of the respondents that till adjudication of the representation they will not take any coercive step with respect of the alleged property of the petitioner.

C c as per rules.

(U.C.Maheshwari) Judge bks

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial