Disposed

Sitaram Baban Shinde and Ors. v. the Additional Commissioner, Pune and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Jul 2009WP/2708/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the allotment of land acquired under the Panshet Dam Project due to missing appeal records. Respondents admitted loss and proposed converting the writ into a fresh representation to resolve the claim on merits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition converted into a fresh representation; Additional Commissioner to decide within six weeks; prior stay order revived pending new disposal.

Sitaram Baban Shinde and Ors. Vs the Additional… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

mss

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2708 OF 2009

¶6

SITARAM BABAN SHINDE & ORS. .. PETITIONERS

¶7

Vs.

¶8

THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, PUNE DIVISION, PUNE & ORS. .. .. RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr. R. D. Soni i/b Ram & Co. for the petitioners

¶10

Mrs. M. P. Thakur, AGP

¶11

CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & A. A. SAYED, JJ.

¶12

DATED: 28/7/2009

¶13

P.C.

¶14

The petitioners claim to be the owner of land bearing Survey No. 280 admeasuring 80 Ars., situated at Koregaon, Mul, Taluka Haveli, District Thane. The State of Maharashtra started acquisition of the said land for

¶15

rehabilitation of the persons affected by the Panshet Dam Project.

¶16

In the year 1990, the petitioners filed an appeal against the acquisition

¶17

¶18

of the said land being Appeal No. 1 of 1990 before the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune. The petitioners applied for stay of the order of acquisition and ad-interim stay was granted by the Additional Commissioner which was operative till 7/1/91. On 20/8/91, the interim stay was confirmed and was made operative till the final disposal of the appeal. The date of hearing of the appeal was to be intimated to the parties concerned by the Additional Commissioner.

¶19

It appears that in January, 2009, the petitioners came across an order whereby an application made by one Laxman Bala More was granted by the Collector and the entry regarding new impartible tenure from the other rights column of the 7/12 extract in respect of the said land was deleted and the possession of the said land was allegedly handed over to the said displaced persons.

¶20

On 21/1/09 the petitioners inquired with the office of the Additional Commissioner as regards the status of their Appeal No. 1 of 1990. The petitioners were informed that the proceedings of the said appeal were not traceable. It is in these circumstances that the petitioners have filed this writ petition praying that order dated 31/12/08 and the allotment of the said land to respondents 5 and 6 made by respondents 1 and 2 pursuant thereto be quashed and set aside.

¶21

To the petition affidavit-in-reply has been filed by Pandurang Shripati

¶22

¶23

Magadum, District Resettlement Officer, Office of the Collector Office, Pune. Paragraphs 8 & 9 of the said affidavit read as under:

¶24

“8. I say that I am quite aware and conscious

¶25

that this cannot be a ground to dis-entitle the Petitioner or depriving any legal right under the garb of nonavailability of original record with office but with great respect to the Court, I sincerely state that the office of the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune can convert this writ petition as fresh representation of the Petitioner herein and liberty is sought from our office to the Hon’ble High Court that within reasonable period i.e. from 4 Weeks from today(after passing the order from the Hon’ble High Court, Our office will hear all the concerned parties i.e. including the Petitioner as well as seeing the original record of Special Land Acquisition Officer and also hearing the Respondent No. 5 and 6 and accordingly the detailed order will be passed.

¶26

I, once again express my sincere apology to the

¶27

Court that no original record is available/missing from our office and, therefore, this office is ready to create

¶28

¶29

this Writ Petition to be converted into representation of the Petitioner and parties concerned will be heard and reasoned order will be passed on merits.”

¶30

Thus it appears that the respondents have accepted that the papers of the petitioners’ appeal are lost and they have shown willingness to consider fresh application of the petitioners or to treat the present petition as a fresh representation and pass a fresh order. In view of this affidavit, in our opinion, following order will meet the ends of justice;

¶31

The present writ petition be treated as the representation of the petitioners. Respondent 1 shall consider it in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today and communicate the order passed by him thereon to the petitioners. The order be passed after hearing the petitioners and the Special Land Acquisition Officer.

¶32

Till such time as the appeal is heard and disposed of and, if the order passed by the 1^st respondent is against the petitioners, for a period of four weeks from the date thereof, the order dated 20/8/1991 passed by the 1^st respondent on the

¶33

¶34

petitioners’ appeal shall continue to operate.

¶35

Petition is disposed of in the afore stated terms.

¶36

(Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.)

¶37

(A. A. Sayed, J.)

Sitaram Baban Shinde and Ors. v. the Additional Commissioner, Pune and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sitaram Baban Shinde and Ors. v. the Additional Commissioner, Pune and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gangadhar Nivrutti Kashmire Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sadashiv Daji Aradhi Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Ors.

Moreshwar S/O. Sitaramji Raut Vs the Honourable Principal District and Sessions Judge and Ors.

Shantilal Misrilal Kankaria Vs the Municipal Commissioner - Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Raghunath Rama Pattade and Ors. Vs the Collector - Kolhapur and Ors.

Mangal Shivram Daki and Ors. Vs the Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Thane Urban Agglomeration, Thane and Anr.