Dismissed

Rusheshwar S/O Vithobaji Paulzagde v. the Secretary of Rural Development Dept. and 7 Others

Bombay HC23 Oct 2013WP/3167/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a notice under Section 53(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958, directing removal of encroachment. The Court held an efficacious remedy existed under Section 53(3A). Since the appeal period had expired but the petition was timely filed, the writ was disposed of with liberty to file the Commissioner's appeal within ten days.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to file an appeal before the Commissioner under Section 53(3A) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 within ten days.

Rusheshwar S/O Vithobaji Paulzagde Vs the Secretary… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

WP3167-13

¶2

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No . IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3167/2013

¶5

(RUSHESHWAR VITHOBAJI PAULZAGDE VERSUS THE SECRETARY OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. & OTHERS)

¶6

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

¶8

Shri P.S. Wathore, counsel for the petitioner. Ms T.H. Udeshi, A.G.P. for the R-1 to 3 & 6. Shri P.R. Pudke, counsel for the R-8.

¶9

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND

¶10

A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

¶11

DATE : OCTOBER 23, 2013.

¶12

By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order issued by the Gram Panchayat under Section 53(2) of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 asking the petitioner to remove the encroachment made by the petitioner on the land in question and deliver the vacant possession of the land to the Gram Panchayat.

¶13

It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that though the petitioner has also prayed for a direction to regularize the encroachment made by the petitioner, the main grievance of the petitioner is in regard to the notice dated 12.06.2013 issued by the Gram Panchayat asking the petitioner to remove the encroachment and deliver the vacant possession of the property to the Panchayat. It is submitted that the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy of approaching the Commissioner in an appeal under Section 53(3A) of the Act of 1958.

¶14

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy of challenging the notice issued by the Panchayat under Section 53(2)

¶15

WP3167-13

¶16

¶17

of the Act of 1958 in an appeal before the Commissioner under Section 53(3A) of the Act of 1958. Though the appeal period has now expired, we find that the petitioner had filed the writ petition on 18.06.2013 immediately after receipt of the impugned notice dated 12.06.2013. Since there is no delay on the part of the petitioner, in the facts of the case, it would be necessary to direct the Commissioner to decide the appeal if the same is filed by the petitioner within a period of ten days.

¶18

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file the appeal before the Commissioner under Section 53(3A) of the Act of 1958 within a period of ten days. If the same is filed within a period of ten days, the Commissioner should decide the same on merits in accordance with law. The adinterim relief granted by this Court to continue for a period of fifteen days, so that the petitioner can approach the Commissioner in appeal.

¶19

Order accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶20

JUDGE

¶21

JUDGE

¶22

APTE

Rusheshwar S/O Vithobaji Paulzagde v. the Secretary of Rural Development Dept. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rusheshwar S/O Vithobaji Paulzagde v. the Secretary of Rural Development Dept. and 7 Others

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

The Vidarbha Irrigation Dev. Corporation Thr. Its Exe. Engineer Vs Bhupendra Ramdhan Pawar and 2 Others

Asmita D/O Madhukar Garmade Vs the Committee for Scrutiny and Verification of Tribe Claim, Gadchiroli Thr. Its Chairman and Others

Semubai W/O Buddhu Munniwale Vs the Collector, Washim and 12 Others

Ramesh S/O Mathaji Dhanwate Vs Maharashtra State through the Secretary to the De

Ku.Ankita Vimalkumar Singh. Vs State of Mah. and 3 Others.

Smt. Pradnya Sharad Deshpande Vs University Grants Commission National Edu. Testing Bureau Uni. of Delhi Thr. Its Head and 2 Others