Allowed

Narsingrao Balbhimrao Deshmukh. v. the State of Mah. and Others.

Bombay HC5 Jan 2011WP/106/1990

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court quashed a show-cause notice issued by the Additional Commissioner regarding surplus land determination after a 13-year delay. Finding no new material to challenge a previous finding of no surplus land, the court held the notice unsustainable and allowed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The show-cause notice dated 02.11.1989 was quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed, and Rule is made absolute.

Narsingrao Balbhimrao Deshmukh. Vs the State… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 106 OF 1990

¶4

Narsingrao S/o Balbhimrao Deshmukh, Deceased, through his L.Rs.

¶5

Balbhimrao S/o Narsingrao Deshmukh, Age : 70 years, Occ : Advocate and Agril., R/o Kati, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist Osmanabad, Now at Flat No. 52, Supreme Enclave, Mayur Vihar, Phase-1, Delhi.

¶6

Devrao S/o Narsingrao Deshmukh, Age : 44 years, Occ : Agri., R/o Kati, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad.

¶7

Avinash S/o Narsingrao Deshmukh, Age : 44 years, Occ : Advocate & Agril., R/o Kati, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist.Osmanabad, now at Marwad Galli, Osmanabad.

¶8

Aniruddha S/o Narsingrao Deshmukh, Age : 40 years, Occ : Agril., R/o Kati, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad.

¶9

Sow. Vimalbai W/o Kishanrao Deshmukh, Age : 68 years, Occ : Household, R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur.

¶10

Sow. Sharayu W/o Sampatrao Jadhav, Age : 65 years, Occ : Household, R/o Satyapriya, Runanubandh Co-op Housing Society, near Dr. Kotbage Hospital, D.P. Road, Aundh, Pune.

¶11

Sow. Ushabai W/o Shivajirao Chavan, Age : 62 years, Occ : Household, R/o Colombus, Runanubandh Co-op. Housing Society, near Dr. Kotbage Hospital, D.P. Road, Aundh, Pune.

¶12

¶13

Sow. Ashabai W/o Sheshrao Deshmukh, Age : 60 years, Occ : Household, R/o Ahmedpur, Tq. Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. 9. Sow. Anita W/o Deepak Naik, Age : 35 years, Occ : Household, R/o Kati, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad, now at Pune. 10. Smt. Shashikalabai W/o Narsingrao Deshmukh, Age : 78 years, Occ : Household, R/o Marwad Galli, Osmanabad, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad. PETITIONERS -VERSUS- 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. Tahsildar/Chairman, Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Tuljapur, District Osmanabad. 3. Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. RESPONDENTS

¶14

Mr.Milind Patil holding for Mr. K.B. Bhise, advocate for petitioners. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 3.

¶15

(CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 5th January, 2011.

¶16

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶17

Heard Advocate Mr. Milind Patil holding for Mr. K.B.

¶18

Bhise for petitioner and learned A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 3.

¶19

Challenge in this Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is to the show-cause notice dated 02.11.1989

¶20

¶21

whereby the respondent no.3-Additional Commissioner has called for certain information from the petitioner in relation to determination of surplus land. Advocate Mr. Patil contends that after written statements were filed, the proceedings were closed by reasoned order on 27.03.1976 noticing that there is no surplus land with the family of the petitioner. Almost after 13 years, the notice has been issued only for the purposes of verification and the notice therefore is nothing but a roving attempt. He relied upon the Full Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 1989 Mh.L.J. 1011 (Manohar Ramchandra Manapur and others V/s State of Maharashtra and another) to show that the power though not specifically stated to be exercisable within stipulated time, the obligation is cast upon the authorities to take recourse to it within a reasonable time. Accordingly, 13 years in the present situation can not be such reasonable time.

¶22

Learned A.G.P. contends that what is served upon the petitioner, only is the show-cause notice for producing the relevant material on record. According to the learned A.G.P. the power is exercised only in public interest.

¶23

Perusal of the record clearly shows that, on 27.03.1976, the Chairman, S.L.D.T. has found that total holdings

¶24

¶25

with the family of which the petitioner was one of the co-parcener was 231 acres 28 Guntha and his two brothers then had also share. Share of the petitioner was notionally worked out at 77 Acres 9 Guntha. The said share was being required to be notionally further divided between the petitioner and his two sons and the orders specifically mention that his two sons were major. The authority because of this application of mind, found that there was no surplus land with the petitioner.

¶26

Show-cause notice dated 02.11.1998 no where shows that the authority issuing it, came in possession of any material sufficient to demonstrate any incorrectness in the findings recorded on 27.03.1976. The show-cause notice only calls upon the petitioner to produce material in support of findings recorded on 27.03.1976. Thus, without possessing any relevant material significant for said purposes, the authority has issued notice to find out whether order dated 27.03.1976 is sustainable or not. The attitude and approach can not be appreciated. Had the authority with it any concrete material demonstrating incorrectness in the reasons, the authority could have been within its jurisdiction in issuing such notice.

¶27

This Court already while issuing Rule in the matter

¶28

¶29

granted interim relief. The controversy is covered by the Full Bench Judgment mentioned supra. I find the show-cause notice forwarded by the respondent unsustainable. The same is accordingly quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is thus allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI)

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

gas/wp106.90

Narsingrao Balbhimrao Deshmukh. v. the State of Mah. and Others.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narsingrao Balbhimrao Deshmukh. v. the State of Mah. and Others.

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

Lalta Prasad Mahadev Sharma Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Jethalal Lakhamshi Charitable Trust Vs Parshwanath Charitable Trust and 4 Ors.

Vilas Kedari Nikam Vs Rajnikant Appaji Shinde and Ors.

Gangya Khandya. Vs Gangadhar Tanaji and Others.

Prakash Hiraman Bhill and Ors. Vs Vitthal Lmanik Choudhari and Ors.

Devba Gyanaji. Vs Digambar Moreshwar (L.Rs.)Ramkanu and Others.