Disposed

Godavari Hatmag Vastra Nirman Sah Sanstha Vasarni Dist Nanded Thr President v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Aug 2012PIL/87/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL regarding disputed land title and acquisition, the High Court found undue delay and an existing civil suit between the parties. The Court held that no further direction was needed, leaving the matter to State authorities to examine the record and take appropriate steps under law, while allowing withdrawal of court fees. (PIL No. 87 of 2011)

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to withdraw deposited amount of Rs.20,000/-.

Godavari Hatmag Vastra Nirman Sah Sanstha Vasarni Dist… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

-:(1):-

¶2

PIL87-12

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

OfficeNotes,Office Court's or Judge's orders.
MemorandaofCoram,
appearance,Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders.

¶5

P. I. L. NO.: 87 OF 2011

¶6

Godavari Hatmag Vastra Nirman Sahakari
Sanstha, Vasarni, District Nanded

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra and others

¶9

***

¶10

Mr. M. D. Narwadkar, Advocate for the
Petitioner.

¶11

Mr. V. H. Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.
1 and 2.

¶12

Mr. Vijay Sharma, Advocate for Respondent
No.4.

¶13

Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Advocate for
Respondent Nos.5/1 to 5/4.

¶14

***

¶15

CORAM:NARESH H. PATIL &

¶16

S. B. DESHMUKH,JJ.
DATED: 2nd AUGUST, 2012.

¶17

PER COURT:

¶18

1. Heard.

¶19

2. The petitioner seeks direction to

¶20

Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to protect the

¶21

property admeasuring 0.86 Ares situated at

¶22

Wasarani, Taluka Nanded and utilise Survey

¶23

No.37, admeasuring 0.86 Ares for the

¶24

purpose for which it was acquired. The

¶25

petitioner further prays for direction to
Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to take appropriate

¶26

-:(2):-

¶27

PIL87-12

¶28

action against Respondent No.5.

¶29

3.The petitioner has prayed for

¶30

aforesaid reliefs in public interest,
according to the petitioner. In short, the
case of the petitioner is that Respondent

¶31

No.5 is the owner of land Gat No.37,

¶32

admeasuring 0.86 Ares situated at village
Wasarni. The said land was subjected to
acquisition by the State. Award came to be
passed by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer on 19th March, 1987. The Award
refers to land owned by the Respondent No.5

¶33

and other lands. The petitioner's
contention is that by manipulating the
record the Respondent No.5 started raising
ownership claim on the said property. The
petitioners land is situated adjacent to
the land in question.

¶34

4.Consequent to the notice issued,

¶35

Respondent No.4 Administrator, CIDCO
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed affidavit in
reply through Special Land Acquisition
Officer, Upper Pen Ganga Project, Nanded

¶36

PIL87-12

¶37

-:(3):-

¶38

and Deputy Collector, Nanded. In para 8,
the deponent contends:

¶39

"8.I say that, thereafter, the
deceased Abdul Gaffar Khan had
mislead the authority by letter
dated1.9.1980andfalsely
contended that, this property was
released from the acquisition
proceeding and made an application
in the year 1992 and got mutated
the entry No.794 in his name.
Though Abdul Gaffar has received

¶40

compensation of the acquired
property and till today the said
amount of compensation was not
repaid to the authority knowingly
well that, this property was
acquired by the Upper Penganga
Project No.1, Nanded and the
PercolationTankM.1.Whas

¶41

released the said property and by
way of misleading the authorities
and created false record the said

¶42

-:(4):-

¶43

PIL87-12

¶44

Abdul Gaffar had cheated the
authorities. Now the authorities
had come to know this fact of
cheating the same and they were
considering option of criminal
prosecution against Adbul Gaffar &
others."

¶45

5.The Respondent No.4 Administrator
CIDCO filed affidavit in reply. In para 3
the deponent contends:

¶46

"3.I say that, for a variety of
reasons the Board of Directors of
CIDCO has taken an administrative
decision vide BR No.8494 dated
22/2/2002 to exclude/ delete the
subject land and submit5ted such a
proposal to the Government of
Maharashtra approved and considered
it expedient to exclude the subject
land and two other lands from the
territorial limits or jurisdiction
of the Nanded Notified Area and to

¶47

cease the appointment of said

¶48

PIL87-12

¶49

-:(5):-

¶50

Corporation (CIDCO) as the Special

¶51

Planning Authority for the excluded
ar4ea and accordingly revised the
concerned notification. As such
the subject land and two other
lands were omitted and excluded

¶52

from the territorial limits or
jurisdiction of the Nanded Notified
Area vide Government of Maharashtra

¶53

notification dated 28th March,
2003, which was published in the
gazette dated 15th May 2003. A

¶54

copy of the said gazette is annexed
and marked Exhibit R-1."

¶55

6.Learnedcounselappearingfor

¶56

Respondent No.5 Shri Rajendra Deshmukh has
raised preliminary objection to the
maintainability of this writ petition as
P.I.L. It is submitted by the counsel that

¶57

the petitioner is highly interested in the
outcome of this petition. Petitioner's land

¶58

is adjacent to the subject land.
Petitioner had filed a suit bearing Regular

¶59

-:(6):-

¶60

PIL87-12

¶61

Civil Suit NO.166 of 2007 against the
Respondent No.5 which is pending in the
trial Court. The petitioner had prayed for
temporary injunction against the Respondent
No.5 and others.

¶62

7.Learned counsel Mr. Deshmukh further

¶63

contends that the CIDCO authorities had
issued notification on 28th March, 2003
excluding and omitting Gat No.37 from the
notified area. Therefore, the P.I.L. on
behalf of the petitioner, after nine years
of the deletion from the notified area, is
not maintainable.

¶64

8.Learned A.G.P. submits that the award
was passed in respect of land Gat No.37 and
the compensation amount was paid to the
Respondent No.5, which statement is
disputed by learned counsel Mr. Deshmukh.

¶65

9.Learned A.G.P. submits that it is now

¶66

brought to the notice of the State
authorities that the land vests in the

¶67

State. Learned A.G.P. submits that
appropriate steps would be taken by the

¶68

PIL87-12

¶69

-:(7):-

¶70

State in accordance with law.

¶71

10.Learned counsel for the petitioner
placed reliance on reported judgments:

¶72

(1)"State of Kerala and others V/s M.
Bhaskaran Pillai and another" - AIR 1997 SC
2703.

¶73

(2)"Govt. of A.P. and another V/s Syed
Akbar" - AIR 2005 SC 492.

¶74

(3)"Yashwant Barku Donhe V/s Additional
Commissioner, Pune and others" - 2011 (4)
Mh.L.J. 244.

¶75

(4)"The Special Land Acqisition officer,
Bombay and others V/s M/s Godrej and Boyce"
- AIR 1987 SC 2421.

¶76

(5)"Balwant Narayan Bhagde V/s M. D.
Bhagwat and others" AIR 1975 SC 1767.

¶77

(6)"Gram Panchayat, Burambali, Kolhapur
V/s Collector, Kolhapur and others" 2006
(0) BCI 184.

¶78

11.We have considered the material placed
before us, the submissions advanced. We
have perused the case law cited before us.

¶79

PIL87-12

¶80

-:(8):-

¶81

12.At the inception we find that there is
undue delay on behalf of the petitioner in
approaching this Court. The petitioner has
taken up the cause to file public interest
litigation after near about nine years.
The petitioner admittedly has filed Regular
Civil Suit No.166 of 2007 in respect of the
samesubjectpropertyGatNo.37,

¶82

admeasuring 0.86 Ares. Respondent No.5

¶83

herein is one of the defendants in the said
suit. The parties are litigating in the
trial Court. The trial Court has passed

¶84

order on application for temporary
injunction. The Respondent No.5 has raised
issues in respect of the petitioner's
personal interest in the subject property.
13.Learned A.G.P. submits that the State
would take appropriate steps in accordance
with the record and the provisions of law.
14.Considering the facts of the case, we

¶85

are of the view that no further directions
are required to be issued to the
Respondents, including the State. The

¶86

-:(9):-

¶87

PIL87-12

¶88

State Authorities would examine the entire

¶89

record and take appropriate steps in
accordance with law.

¶90

15.Thepetitionisdisposedof

¶91

accordingly.

¶92

16.Petitioner is permitted to withdraw

¶93

the amount of Rs.20,000/- deposited
consequent to order passed by this Court on
21st June, 2012.

¶94

17.Authentic copy of this order be

¶95

furnished to learned A.G.P. which shall be
forwarded to the Collector, Nanded
forthwith.

¶96

[S.B.DESHMUKH, J.][NARESH H.PATIL J.]
Dt.02/08/2012
ans/PIL87-12

Godavari Hatmag Vastra Nirman Sah Sanstha Vasarni Dist Nanded Thr President v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Godavari Hatmag Vastra Nirman Sah Sanstha Vasarni Dist Nanded Thr President 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anand Narayanrao Jammu Vs State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.

Shri Jitendra S/O Bhaorao Kapse Vs the Secretary, Revenue Department and 9 Others

Sunil Baldeorao Kharate Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Chief Secretary and 8 Others

Raur Nyaju Patel Vs the State of Lmaharashtra and Ors.

M/S. Resources of Aviation Redressal Association Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Bharat Vitthalrao Thite Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shri. Ramchandra Warik Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Industrial Development and Ors.

Bahuudeshiya Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Uva Sanstha Thr. Its President Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Its Secty. and Ors.

Sardar Teerathsingh Deewansingh Major Vs the State of Mah

Gajendra Digambar Lokhande Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Mohd. Habib Mohd. Maulana Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sai Labour Contractor through Proprietor Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Aurangabad and Ors.

Shivaji Malhari Warkad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shaikh Yusuf Shaikh Ahmed Vs the State of Mah and Anr.