Partly allowed

Suresh Sakhabapu Deshmukh v. the State of Mah

Bombay HC23 Sept 2013WP/149/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the validity of a Cabinet decision bifurcating the Aurangabad Revenue Division. The Court held that while the decision itself was not void, its implementation was defective as it failed to follow mandatory statutory procedures regarding public notice and considering objections. The Court partially allowed the petition. National Judicial Summary of India

What did the court decide?

The impugned decision was not quashed, but the State Government was directed to initiate steps to comply with Section 4(4) of the 1966 Code within three months.

Suresh Sakhabapu Deshmukh Vs the State of Mah — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

WP/149/2009+

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 149 OF 2009

¶5

Shri Suresh Sakhabapu Deshmukh, Age Adult, Occ. Agriculture, Member of Legislative Council, R/o Parbhani.

¶6

..Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra Through the Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶9

Sanjeev Tukaram Kulkarni, Age 43 years, Occ. Journalist and Agriculture, R/o 5, Vidhut Nagar, Nanded and also Dongarkheda, Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli.

¶10

3.Gopal Bajaranglal Agrawal, Age 36 years, Occ. Agriculture and Service, R/o Risale Bazar, Hingoli.

¶11

Munnalal Rajaram Pardeshi, Age 75 years, Occ. Business, R/o Guruwar Peth, Ambajogai, District Beed.

¶12

..Respondents

¶13

Shri P.M.Shah, Sr. Advocate i/b S/Shri A.N.Sabnis & Manish Bhamre Advocates for the petitioner, Shri S.K.Tambe, AGP for respondent No.1, Shri R.R.Mantri, Advocate for respondent No.2, Shri G.R.Ingole, Advocate for respondent No.3 and Shri R.J.Nirmal, Advocate for respondent No.4.

¶14

WITH

¶15

WRIT PETITION NO. 155 OF 2009

¶16

Samad Razak Patel,

¶17

Age 48 years, Occ. Legal Practitioner, R/o Teli Galli, Near Khadak Hanuman, Latur.

¶18

WP/149/2009+

¶19

¶20

Uday Govindrao Gaware, Age 45 years, Occ. Legal Practitioner, R/o Gul Market, Latur.

¶21

..Petitioners

¶22

Versus

¶23

The State of Maharashtra Through the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶24

The Chief Minister, Maharashtra State, Having his office at 6th Floor, Dr. Annie Bezant Marg, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶25

The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶26

The Divisional Revenue Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad.

¶27

Namdeorao Gyanba Keshave, Age 66 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Ashta, Tq. Mahur, District Nanded.

¶28

Sunil Gopinathrao Pawar, age 28 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Tuppa, Tq. & Dist. Nanded.

¶29

Sunil Baburao Kale, Age 35, Occ. President, Municipal Council, Vasmat, District Hingoli.

¶30

Swapnil Vilasrao Gundewar, Age 28 years, Occ. Legal Practitioner, R/o Shivaji Nagar, Hingoli.

¶31

Rajendra Bhagwanrao Pawar, Age 33 years, Occ. Agriculture and Business, R/o Shinde Takli, Taluka Sailu, District Parbhani.

¶32

Awadhut Ganpatrao Bodamwad,

¶33

WP/149/2009+

¶34

¶35

Age 22 years, Occ. Education, R/o Mendkha, Tq. Mudkhed, District Nanded.

¶36

Sunil Sonajirao Mate, Age 34 years, Occ. Agriculture and President of Taluka Congress Committee, Jintur, r/o Wazar (Bk.), Tq. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani.

¶37

Annasaheb Babarao Kale, Age 61 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Shrihari Nagar, Near Sawali Rest House, Wasmat Road, Parbhani.

¶38

Balwantsing Govindsing Gadiwale, Age 58 years, Occ. Social Work, Now Mayor, Nanded Waghala Municipal Corporation, Nanded.

¶39

Anwarkhan Habibkhan, Age 48 years, Occ. Social Worker, R/o Main Road, Kallamnuri, District Hingoli.

¶40

Nandkishor Laxminarayan Toshniwal, Age 50 years, Occ. President of District Marathi Journalist Association, R/o Police Station Road, Kallamnuri, District Hingoli.

¶41

Sayyed Abdula Sayyed Hasan, Age 75 years, Occ. Social work, R/o Himayatnagar, Dist. Nanded.

¶42

Nagorao Anandrao Jadhav Roshangaonkar, Age 71 years, Occ. Social Worker, R/o at Post Roshangaon, Tq. Dharmabad, Dist. Nanded.

¶43

Balaji Dhondiba Kompalwar Age 47 years, Occ. Lecturer, R/o Vidya Nagar, Tq. Dharmabad, District Nanded.

¶44

Zilla Parishad Osmanabad,

¶45

WP/149/2009+

¶46

¶47

Through its President Godavari Jalinder Kendre, Age 46 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Zilla Parishad Quarters, Opp. Tulja Bhavani Stadium, Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad.

¶48

..Respondents

¶49

Shri V.D.Hon, Advocate for petitioners, Shri S.K.Tambe, AGP for respondent No.1, Shri S.R.Palnitkar, Advocate for respondent No.5, Shri V.D.Salunke, Advocate for respondent No.11, Shri M.V.Deshpande, Advocate for respondent No.13 and Shri P.R.Patil, Advocate for respondent No.19.

¶50

WITH

¶51

WRIT PETITION NO.394 OF 2009

¶52

Sayyad Rashid Sayyad Yasin, Age 46 years, Occ. Business, R/o Wangi Road, Parbhani.

¶53

..Petitioner

¶54

Versus

¶55

The State of Maharashtra through its Principal Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32.

¶56

The Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

¶57

The Secretary, Law & Judicial Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶58

The Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶59

..Respondents

¶60

Shri R.R.Chandak, Advocate for the petitioner, Shri S.K.Tambe, AGP for respondents

¶61

WP/149/2009+

¶62

¶63

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1632 OF 2009

¶64

Sunil Bhagchand Kala, Age 38 years, Occ Business and Social Work, R/o Bhagya Nagar, Nanded. ..Petitioner

¶65

Versus State of Maharashtra, Through it's Secretary, Revenue Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32. ..Respondent

¶66

Shri K.C.Sant, Advocate for petitioner and Shri S.K.Tambe, AGP for respondent.

¶67

CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ. Dated : September 23, 2013

¶68

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Dharmadhikari, J.) :-

¶69

Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶70

Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and the petitions are taken up for final disposal.

¶71

All these petitions question the decision taken in Cabinet Meeting by the State Government on 5.1.2009 to bifurcate Aurangabad Revenue Division and to create a separate Revenue Division for Nanded, Latur, Parbhani and Hingoli districts with it's headquarter at Nanded. The petitioners submit that this was not the subject scheduled on agenda of

¶72

WP/149/2009+

¶73

¶74

the Cabinet Meeting and was taken up at eleventh hour. The Cabinet decision expected administration to follow the legal provisions and to comply with the statutory requirements. However, without taking any such steps, directly, as if the Revenue Division stands created with headquarter at Nanded, the budgets were prepared. Our attention has also been invited to orders passed in present Writ Petitions on 15.1.2009 and order dated 10.11.2006 in Writ Petition No.6025 of 2006 by this Court.

¶75

Respective learned counsel state that they have no objection to creation of separate Revenue Division but it must be done after complying with the provisions of Section 4 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for brevity, hereinafter "1966 Code") read with Section 24 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 (for brevity, "1904 Act" hereinafter).

¶76

Learned AGP submits that the learned Advocate General has appeared before this Court on 15.1.2009 and made a statement that procedure prescribed in law would be followed. Accordingly, that procedure was initiated but then as suggested, a One Man Committee chaired by retired Honourable Judge of this Court was constituted. He submits that thereafter, the report of that Committee was to be received and looked into.

¶77

We have perused the provisions of Section 4 of the 1966 Code.

¶78

WP/149/2009+

¶79

¶80

Section 4 deals with the constitution of Revenue areas. Sub-section (4) thereof stipulates that every notification or order made under Section 4 is subject to condition of previous publication and for that purpose Section 24 of 1904 Act has been made applicable. The power has been given to State Government. Clause (d) of Section 24 of 1904 Act requires the authority having power to create such Revenue Division, to consider any objection or suggestion, which may be received by it from any person, after the publication of such notification or proposal. It is, therefore, apparent that this statutory procedure cannot be done away and even if any One Man Committee is appointed or it's report is accepted that acceptance cannot defeat the requirements of Section 4(4) of 1966 Code.

¶81

It is an admitted position that till date, no such steps are taken and there is no separate Revenue Division.

¶82

The impugned decision taken in the Cabinet meeting dated 5.1.2009 does not by itself violate Section 4(4) of 1966 Code. However, it's implementation appears to be faulty. In this situation, with liberty to the State Government to proceed further in the matter, in accordance with provisions of Section 4(4) of 1966 Code, we partly allow this petition. We, further direct the State Government to follow the later part of said Resolution on subject No.4, which requires it to abide by the necessary legal provisions.

¶83

WP/149/2009+

¶84

¶85

Respondents in Writ Petition No.149 of 2009 as also petitioner in Writ Petition No.1632 of 2009, pray that these steps should be taken in a time bound manner. The decision taken by the Cabinet is more than four year's old. Hence, we direct the respondents to initiate necessary steps within period of three months from today.

¶86

With these directions, Rule is made absolute accordingly in all Writ Petitions, with no order as to costs.

¶87

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶88

(B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶89

akl

Suresh Sakhabapu Deshmukh v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Sakhabapu Deshmukh v. the State of Mah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagwanrao Kalyanrao Panchal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Laxman Gyanba Alure Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sant Pundlik Shikshan Mandal Pratishthan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bhupendra Darbarsing Raval Vs the State Election Commission and Others

Samad Razak Patel and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Sayyad Rashid Sayyad Yasin Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.