Dismissed

Satpati Krida Association and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Dec 2010PIL/160/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a PIL alleging illegal encroachment on land gifted to a Gram Panchayat. The Court found disputed questions of fact regarding the land's location and held that an alternative civil remedy existed for title determination.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with liberty to file a civil suit; ad-interim relief extended till 15th January, 2011.

Satpati Krida Association and Ors. Vs the State of… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2010)

srk

pil-160-10.sxw

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.160 OF 2010

¶6

Satpati Krida Association and others. ... Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents

¶7

Mr. S.G. Deshmukh i/by Mr. Abhijeet J. Kandarkar for the petitioners. Mr. Sandesh Patil respondent No.5. Mr. V.D. Patil, Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. V.A. Thorat, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. S.R. Saudagar for respondent Nos.6 and 7. Mr. Rakesh S. Patil for respondent No.4.

¶8

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & S.J. KATHAWALLA , J. Tuesday, December 14, 2010

¶9

P.C.

¶10

In this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which is in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, the Association of residents of village Satpati and two of its members have prayed for direction to the State of Maharashtra, Collector, Thane and Tahasildar, Palghar to take action against respondent Nos.6 and 7 for alleged illegal and unauthorised encroachment on the land, which is the subject matter of dispute in this petition.

¶11

According to the petitioners, the land in question was previously owned by the members of Shroff family and the land was thereafter gifted to the Gram Panchayat through respondent No.4 Smt. Vidya Vijay Mali, Member of Satpati Gram Panchayat. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the registered gift deed dated 31st March, 2008.

srk

pil-160-10.sxw

The petitioners rely upon a sketch at Exhibit `D1' to the petition to indicate the location of the land.

¶16

On the other hand, respondent Nos.6 and 7 have contended in their affidavit in reply that the land which was retained by Shroff family and gifted to the Gram Panchayat under the Gift Deed dated 31st March, 2008 is not the same land which is shown in Exhibit `D1' but it is as shown in Exhibits 1 to 3 of the affidavit in reply of respondent Nos.6 and 7.

¶17

As far as the Tahsildar, Palgar is concerned, in the affidavit in reply dated 25th October, 2010, the said Tahsildar has stated that the land in question which was used as sports ground is still being used for the same purpose and respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have not made any encroachments on that land. As regards the gift of the land which is the subject matter of this petition, the Tahsildar has stated that the land was gifted by the original owners to Smt. Vidya Vijay Mali, Member, Grampanchayat, Satpati and the same has been mutated in her individual name vide Mutation Entry No.2029 in the records of rights i.e. 7/12 extract.

¶18

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the petition raises disputed questions of fact about location of land which the original owners of the land have gifted to the Gampanchayat, Satpati. Of course, the Gift Deed is executed in favour of Smt. Vidya Vijay Mali, Member, Grampanchayat, Satpati but the contents of the Gift Deed make it absolutely clear that the land is gifted to the Grampanchayat, Satpati.

¶19

Since the petitioners have an alternative remedy of filing a civil suit for getting the necessary reliefs in respect of the land in question, we

srk

pil-160-10.sxw

dispose of this petition with liberty to the petitioners to file a civil suit before the appropriate Court and pray for appropriate interim relief. We direct that the ad-interim relief granted on 12th August, 2010 by this Court shall continue till 15th January, 2011. We make it clear that the continuation of the said adinterim relief shall not be treated as an expression of our opinion and the Civil Court shall decide the matter independently in accordance with law without being influenced by the previous order of this Court dated 12th August, 2010 or the present order.

¶24

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶25

S.J. KATHAWALLA, J.

Satpati Krida Association and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satpati Krida Association and Ors. v. the 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajiz Ahmed Ghulam Rasul and 3 Ors. Vs Akola Municipal Corporation Thr. Its Commissioner, Akola and 4 Ors.

Jitendra Narayanrao Ghosekar Vs the State of Maha. Thr Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Dr. Harish S/O Narayan Warbhe and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., and 4 Ors.

The Courts on Its Own Motion Vs the Supdt. of Police, Yavatmal and Anr.

Ajay S/O Kamalkishor Somani Vs Union of India Thr. Its Secty., and Anr.

Bharastachar Nirmoolan Sanghtana and 1 Ors. Vs Municiapal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai 2 Ors.

Suresh Kachruji Dhurdev and 14 Ors. Vs U.O.I. Thr. Its Min. of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation Thr. Secty., and 3 Ors.

Vijay S/O Kamalkishore Agrawal Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty., and 3 Ors.

Sayed Safar Ali and Ors. Vs Kusum C. More and Ors.

M/S. Mirasu Marketing Ltd. Vs Franch Herbs Technologics Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Velji Mawji Satwara Vs M.V. Chaturvedi and Ors. Yatin Trivedi and Anr.

Arvind Maruti Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Akhil Bhartiya Marathi Patrakar Parishad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Krishnai Valu Vahatukdar Sevabhavi Sanstha Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.