Allowed

The State of Maharashtra and Others v. Dnyanoba Ramkishan Nirwal

Bombay HC11 Jul 2013CA/6097/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ application for vacation of status quo in a land rehabilitation project, the court noted discrepancies in the respondent's rehabilitation lists. Citing larger public interest and the risk of flash floods, the court allowed the application and quashed the status quo order, directing that non-rehabilitated grievances be redressed separately.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Application is allowed and the order of status quo dated 8th June, 2012 is vacated.

The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

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

¶2

Civil Application No. 6097 of 2013 (In Writ Petition No. 4662 of 2012)

¶3

1. The State of Maharashtra, through their Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶4

2. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.

¶5

3. District Collector, Jalna District.

¶6

4. The District Rehabilitation Officer, Jalna.

¶7

5.The Executive Engineer,
Lower Dudhana Project Division,.. Applicants
Selu, Taluka : Selu, (Original
District : Parbhani. respondents)

¶8

versus

¶9

Dnyanoba s/o. Ramkishan Nirwal,
Aged : 40 years,
Occupation : Agriculture,.. Respondent
Resident of Nansi, (Original
Tahsil Mantha, District Jalna. petitioner)

¶10

...........

¶11

(2)

¶12

Mr. S.B. Talekar, Special Counsel, with
Mrs. V.A. Shinde, Assistant Government
Pleader, for the applicants.

¶13

Mr. R.V. Dasalkar, Advocate, for the
respondent.

¶14

...........

¶15

CORAM : A.H.JOSHI &
 SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ.

¶16

 DATE : 11TH JULY, 2013

¶17

ORDER :

¶18

1.This is an application which is moved by the
respondents in Writ Petition, for vacation of the
order of status quo, passed by the Vacation Judge
(Hon'ble Shri Justice U.D. Salvi) on 8th June 2012.

¶19

2.The petition is yet to be admitted. By
consent, admission hearing of main Writ Petition is
adjourned to Monday, 15th July 2013.

¶20

3.This Court had recorded on 29th April 2013,
that let an application be filed for vacation of
status quo, if the respondents so desire, and hence
application is moved. Therefore, considering the

¶21

(3)

¶22

urgency, as represented before us, this application
is taken up for hearing.

¶23

4.Heard Advocate for the petitioner, as well
as, Advocates for respondents in Writ Petition, who
are applicants in this case.

¶24

5.The foundation of the petition is as
follows:-

¶25

Few villagers from village Nancy have not been
rehabilitated, yet the respondent no.4 has issued
public notice on 28-5-2013, thereby notifying to the
residents of the village, which would be effected
submergence to shift their new location.

¶26

6.While replying the contents of the petition,
the respondent has furnished three lists of villagers
at annexure "B" collectively.

¶27

7.These lists consist of names of in all 179
persons, showing the number of plot given to them.

¶28

8.It is alleged in the affidavit that 274
plots are allotted to the respective villagers and
191 villagers have already shifted.

¶29

9.It is seen, that the number of persons found
in the list and number of persons mentioned in the

¶30

(4)

¶31

affidavit does not match and, therefore, it would be
necessary for the respondents to produce proper list
and give supporting record, if any.

¶32

10.The affidavit also contains statements
that :-

¶33

(a) The construction of Irrigation Project, including
'gorge filling' is completed, major arrangement at
the rehabilitation location are done and all that has
remained is permitting flow of water in the dam;

¶34

(b) That due to heavy showers, river Dudhana is
overflowing and this creates problem of flash floods,
and inspite that the construction of dam is complete
and storage of water in the tank is withheld due to
the order of status quo.

¶35

11.We had asked learned Advocate for the
petitioner to clarify as to how many villagers are
not rehabilitated. Learned Advocate for the
petitioner has stated that at present, the number may
be 14 and it could be even more, though at this
stage, he is not able to give exact number of such
persons.

¶36

12.It is pertinent to note that the affidavit
in reply was filed by respondent no.4 on 11th June
2013, and present petitioner had sought time to go

¶37

(5)

¶38

through the affidavit and take instructions from his
client, and hearing was adjourned to 24th June 2013.

¶39

13.All these facts are matter of record, as
noted by this Court on Farad order. Today, the case
has come for hearing after 15 days from the said
earlier date of hearing and even then, any rejoinder
has not been filed.

¶40

14.The question as to rehabilitation would
still remain and it would be considered while hearing
the Writ Petition. For calling information from the
respondent, we shall be passing a separate order in
the Writ Petition.

¶41

15.In view of the fact that while larger
interest is to be considered, the interest of
individual, as well, will be looked into.

¶42

16.Learned Special Counsel appearing for the
State has stated after taking instructions, that the
grievance of the persons who are not rehabilitated
would be redressed without loss of time.

¶43

17.In this background, it is necessary that in
the larger interest, the order of status quo be
vacated.

¶44

18.In view of the foregoing discussion, Civil

¶45

Application is allowed. The order of status quo,
dated 8th June, 2012, is vacated.

¶46

( SUNIL P. DESHMUKH ) ( A.H. JOSHI )
 JUDGE JUDGE

¶47

.........

¶48

 bgp/ca6097

The State of Maharashtra and Others v. Dnyanoba Ramkishan Nirwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra and Others v. Dnyanoba Ramkishan Nirwal

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

State of Maha Vs Hiraman Damu Jadhav

Suhas Raybhan Abhang and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

The State of Maharashtra and Another Vs Gulam Mujahed Gulam Samad

Santosh Nagorao Sujlegaonkar Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded and Others

Gangadhar Balanna Enadle Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Latur and Others

Gangasagar Gangadhar Premulwad (Chikatwad) Vs the State of Mah and Ors.