Disposed

Shri Subhash S/O Deorao Langewar v. State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Feb 2012PIL/27/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL concerning irregularities in land allotment to flood-affected persons, the Court held that the process was legal as per the Committee report. No illegality was found in the current allotments, and grievances regarding specific allottees should be addressed by the Tahsildar upon further representation.

What did the court decide?

The Public Interest Litigation is disposed of finding no illegality in the allotment; grievances regarding specific allottees to be addressed by the Tahsildar.

Shri Subhash S/O Deorao Langewar Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1/3

¶2

1302pil27.11.odt

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR.

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 27 OF 2011

¶6

(Subhash Deorao Lanjewar Vs. State of Maharashtra & others)

¶7

Mr. A. H. Laddhad, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. B. H. Dangre, A.G.P. for respondents No. 1 to 3. Mr. R. S. Parsodkar, Advocate for the intervenor.

¶8

¶9

C ORAM: P. B. MAJMUDAR AND P. B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : 13 FEBRUARY, 2012.

¶10

P. C. :

¶11

By way of this Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has prayed that respondents be directed to hold enquiry regarding irregularities in connection with allotment of land bearing Survey Nos. 348 and 657 situated at Mouza Karambha, Tq. Parsioni, District Nagpur. Because of heavy flood, many residents of village Karambha were affected. The Government came with the policy and allotted land to the affected persons. It is the grievance of the petitioner that in such allotment, there are irregularities.

¶12

Respondent No.3-Tahsildar, Parsioni, in his affidavit-in-reply, in para Nos. 3 and 4 averred as under.:

¶13

“It is most respectfully stated that the village Karambhad is a flood affected village and therefore taking into consideration the need to provide a safe residential site to the flood affected cultivators, workers, labourers and needy persons who really require the plots in the new Gaothan a committee consisting of Naib Tahsildar, Mandal Adhikari, Talathi, Village Sarpanch and Ex-sarpanch was formed. The Gram Panchayat was also consulted into this matter and the Gram Panchayat has passed resolution in favour of allotment of plots. It is most respectfully submitted that there was no compliant from

¶14

2/3

¶15

1302pil27.11.odt

¶16

the Sarpanch or any other member of the Gram Panchayat. The proper scrutiny of each and every application for the allotment of plot was done scrupulously and the Committee have prepared the list of persons who were eligible for allotment of plots.

¶17

It is submitted that in Revenue Case No.I/LNA-22/2009-2010, a layout for extension of Gaothan of village Karambhad was prepared in which 254 plots were laid out. It is further stated that on 15/6/2009 a public notice was published on the conspicuous place and notice board of village for inviting applications for allotment of plots from the needy persons. It is submitted that thereupon 681 applications were inquired and looked into in order to find out whether they are the needy persons. The categories are (1) Flood affected persons (2) Land less persons (3) Marginal holders (4) Holder having more than five acres of agricultural land (5) Persons living as tenants in the village for more than 5 years (6) Landless agricultural labourers (7) Very needy small agriculturists.

¶18

Accordingly list was prepared in each category of members which is enlisted as under :

¶19

Sr. No.	Nature of Category	No. of persons selected for allotments of plots	Areas of each plot in Sq.Ft. 30X30	Area of each plot in Sq.Ft. 30X30
1	Flood affected landless	53	53	0
2	Flood affected marginal farmers and farmers having more than five acres of land	43	0	43
3	Land less needy persons of the village and landless persons living as tenants in the village for more than five years.	26	23	3
4	Very needy small farmers and very needy farmers having more than five acres of agricultural land	10	0	10

¶20

Accordingly 254 plots were distributed to the villagers in the following

manner. :

3/3

1302pil27.11.odt

1	Total No. of plots in the layout	254
2	Plots reserved for the public purpose	3 (P.No. 227, 228 and 229 reserved for the public purpose)
3	Remaining plots	251
4	Encroached plots	3
5	Plots available for allotment	248
6	Plot allotted to flood affected people	132
7	Plots sanctioned under different categories	114
8	Total plots allotted	246
9	Remaining plots for allotment	2

¶25

Before allotting the plots, the Committee was already constituted and as per the report of the said Committee, only eligible persons have been allotted the plots. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner’s father was also selected for allotment of the plot. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, argued that some of the allottees have violated the condition of the allotment so far as the allottees of Survey No. 483 are concerned. The petitioner has not joined the allottees as party to the present litigation. If any allottee, in any of the survey number, has violated the condition of allotment, the Tahsildar may hold enquiry with regard to the irregularities pointed out to him by way of representation to the Tahsildar. If any violation is found by the Tahsildar, the Tahsildar may pass appropriate order in accordance with law after hearing the concerned allottees. The petitioner to make representation in this behalf to the Tahsildar pointing out any irregularity on the part of the allottees. So far as the allotment of plots is concerned, we do not find any illegality in the same, in view of what is stated above. If any allottee has violated the allotment condition, the Tahsildar may act accordingly as pointed out earlier.

¶26

Subject to what is stated above, the Public Interest Litigation is disposed of.

¶27

JUDGE JUDGE.

¶28

wwl

Shri Subhash S/O Deorao Langewar v. State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Subhash S/O Deorao Langewar v. State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. 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

Adarsha Nagar Nagarik Seva Samiti and Anr. Vs the Chief Officer, Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board and 4 Ors.

manubhai p. vashi Vs state of maharashtra and 5 Ors.

Shail Rane and 2 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 9 Ors.

Nivrutti Dagdu Sonwane Vs the State of Maharshtra and Ors.

Jitendra Narendra Shende Vs Collector, Amravati Division, Amravati

Aparajit S/O Anandrao Ninawe Vs Dr. S.Y. Quraishi, Chief Election Commissioner, and Anr.

Doodh Utpadak Kalayankari Sangh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bhausaheb Kachru Dube Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shri Vivek Marotrao Dabhade and Another Vs the State of Mah. and Others.

Vidarbha Gas Vessels Pvt. Ltd., Thru. Director Vs Ashok Kelwade and 23 Ors.

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Ii Vs Smt. Sangeetadevi Agrawal

Dr. Kailash S/O Devideen Japsare Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.

Goodearth Agrochem Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Its Director Rahul Pramod Budhraja Vs Container Corporation of India Ltd. Thr. Its Chief General Manager and Anr.

M/S Anand Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Its M.D. Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and 3 Ors.