Ratan Jagannath Sonar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

¶1

ast 1 wp2836.08.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2836 OF 2008

¶4

Ratan Jagannath Sonar & ors. ....Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & ors. ....Respondents

¶5

Mr.G.S.Godbole for petitioners.

¶6

Mr.J.S.Pawar, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶7

CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ

¶8

DATED:- APRIL 27, 2010

¶9

P.C.

¶10

By this petition, Petitioner has challenged the order dated 29^th November, 2002 passed by the Respondent No.2 under section 8(4) of the Act, notification under section 10(3) of the Act dated 15^th February, 2007 and notice dated 30^th May, 2007 under section 10(5) of the ULC Act in respect of the land bearing Survey No. 180/1B+2A/1/3 situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Zilla Parishad Nashik and Panchayat Samiti Nashik Sub-Division, Taluka Nashik Division, District Nashik admeasuring 4000 sq. meters. Surplus area determined is 2000 sq. meters. It is prayed that the same be declared as illegal and bad in law and the same be quashed and set aside on the ground that after the repeal of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976(ULC Act) all

¶11

ast 2 wp2836.08.sxw

¶12

actions thereunder have abated. As is well settled, that is the inevitable order to be passed, if the Petitioners were able to establish the fact that they are still in possession of the land in question. However, if it is noticed that possession of the surplus vacant land has been taken over by the Authorities before the date of repeal of ULC Act, the relief as claimed cannot be granted.

¶13

The Respondents have filed affidavit before this Court asserting that possession of the disputed land has already been taken over on 1^st November, 2007, which is prior to the date of repeal of ULC Act in the State of Maharashtra. Indeed, the Petitioners have disputed the said stand of the Respondents. According to the Petitioners as a matter of fact, possession has not been taken over at all and the Respondents have merely created record regarding possession. This is a disputed question of fact. Further, although Respondents have stated that the possession of the surplus vacant land has been taken, which is only admeasuring 2000 sq.meters out of the larger property belonging to the Petitioner admeasuring 4000 sq. meters, it is not clear from the documents as to possession of which portion of the larger property has been taken. This is also a disputed question of fact, which can be resolved by way of civil suit, if the Petitioners so intend to take recourse to that remedy. The fact remains that there is dispute on the factum of taking over

¶14

ast 3 wp2836.08.sxw

¶15

of possession of the property in question. In such a situation, following observations of our High Court in the case of Namdev B.Kamble & ors. v/s. Additional Collector and Competent Authority, ULC, Nasik & Ors. dated 28^th

¶16

July, 2008 in WP No.1000 of 2008, we would dispose of this petition with liberty to the Petitioners to file a civil suit seeking appropriate reliefs.

¶17

However, the parties shall maintain status quo in relation to the disputed land in question for a period of 8 weeks from today to enable the Petitioners to pursue their remedy by way of suit for appropriate reliefs, as may be advised. Needless to observe that all questions that would arise for consideration in the said proceedings will have to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law.

¶18

Petition disposed of on the above terms.

¶19

(R.M. SAVANT, J)

¶20

(A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)

Ratan Jagannath Sonar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ratan Jagannath Sonar and Ors. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dnyanu Rama Pawar Vs Tahasildar, Walwa and Ors.

Hemant S/O. Sudhakar Padalkar Vs High Court of Judicatiure of Bombay and Diciplinay Authority through Registrar General and Ors.

Mansoor Amirhamaja Momin (Decd.)by Lrs.- Shamim Mansur Momin and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shashikant Ganpat Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Narendra Totaram Gajre and Anr. Vs Addl. Collector and Competent Authority and Ors.

Shivaji Rayba Shinde and Ors. Vs the Competent Authority and Ors.