Allowed

Hirabai Baban Pasalkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Oct 2008WP/5911/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay quashed the Collector's order cancelling the petitioner's land allotment and subsequent mutation changes. The court held that cancelling tenure after 22 years of allotment and 11 years of possession without a show-cause notice violated natural justice, and possession was left undisturbed.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Collector cancelling allotment and changing mutation entries was quashed; possession of land was directed not to be disturbed.

Hirabai Baban Pasalkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

 : 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5911 OF 2008

¶3

 Hirabai Baban Pasalkar ...Petitioner.
 V/s.

¶4

 State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents.

¶5

 Mr.S.S.Patwardhan , adv. for the Petitioner.

¶6

 Mr.V.S.Masurkar, AGP , adv. for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4.

¶7

 CORAM: Bilal Nazki&
J.H.Bhatia,JJ.
 DATE : 20th October, 2008.

¶8

 P.C.:

¶9

 1. Petitioner claims that she is displaced person

¶10

 because of the project, which was executed in the year
 1975-76. In lieu of her dispossession and dislocation, she

¶11

 was allotted a piece of land in the year 1986 and
 ultimately possession was handed over to her in 1997 but on
 28th January, 2008, it appears that the Collector of Pune

¶12

 wrote to Tehsildar, Haveli directing him to cancel the
 allotment and also to make appropriate changes in the
 revenue records as after handing over possession to the
 petitioner, her name had been recorded in the revenue
 records. Tehsildar acted upon the letter of the Collector
 and revenue entries were also changed. Counter has been
 filed. In the counter, it is claimed that the petitioner
 was not entitled for allotment as she was not project

¶13

 : 2 :

¶14

 affected person but it does not deny that land was allotted
 to her, possession was given to her and her name was also
 recorded in the revenue record on 2-1-2007. It is also not
 denied that before passing the order of cancellation and
 change of mutation, no notice was given to the petitioner.
 We feel that the impugned order can not be allowed to be
 sustained on the simple ground that after 22 years of
 allotment having been made and after 11 years possession
 has been given to the petitioner, allotment could not have
 been cancelled without even giving show-cause notice.
 Therefore, the order impugned is violative of rules of
 natural justice and can not be allowed to sustain.

¶15

 2. The order passed by the Collector, Pune and
 subsequent orders effecting changes in the mutation entries
 are quashed. It is admitted that possession continues to
 be with her and, therefore, her possession shall also not
 be disturbed. Further, if the respondents feel that this
 is a case of misrepresentation or fraud, they should
 proceed in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders
 after hearing the petitioner. The learned counsel for the
 petitioner undertakes that third party interest in the land
 shall not be created for a period of three months from
 today.

¶16

 : 3 :

¶17

 3. Petition is disposed off.

¶18

(Bilal Nazki, J.)

¶19

(J.H.Bhatia, J.)

Hirabai Baban Pasalkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hirabai Baban Pasalkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manohar Limbaji Kewale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Madan Ramchandra Bhosale Vs the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Solapur and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs Bhalchandra Vasudeo Bhaskare and Ors.

Keshav Yashwant Potdar Vs the Collector and Deputy Director for Rehabilitation Project (Land) , Kolhapur and Ors.

Dhondba Sakhoba Patil Vs the Collector and Deputy Director for Rehabilitation Project (Land), Kolhapur and Ors.

Fiat India Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.