Dismissed

Samadhan Baban Nikalje v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Oct 2013WP/5807/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single writ petition addressed allotment disputes involving government tenements. The High Court quashed an allotment order in favor of a respondent who vacated the premises and directed the police authorities to consider the petitioner's application afresh without adjudicating entitlement.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order dated 7th March 2012, directed the respondent to vacate the tenement by January 31, 2014, and directed authorities to consider the petitioner's application afresh.

Samadhan Baban Nikalje Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2013)

25.wp5807.2013.sxw

sg.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.5807 OF 2013

¶6

Samadhan Baban Nikalje ….Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents

¶7

Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel for the Petitioner. Mr. J.S. Deo, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Narendra V. Bandiwadekar i/by Bhushan A. Bandiwadekar for Respondent No.3.

¶8

CORAM: A. S. OKA & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ.

¶9

DATED: OCTOBER 24, 2013.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

Learned Counsel appearing for the third Respondent on instructions of the third Respondent, who is personally present in the Court, states that the third Respondent shall vacate the tenement bearing No.'A'- 93 at Vashi within a period of three months i.e. on or before 31st January 2014. On instructions, he states that the third Respondent does not desire to claim any Government accommodation for the time being. He prays that from the date on which the third Respondent vacates said premises, House Rent Allowance to the third Respondent be restored.

¶12

¶13

sg. 25.wp5807.2013.sxw

¶14

By the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, the original application filed by the third Respondent has been allowed by directing that the said tenement bearing No. 'A'-93 be allotted to the third Respondent.

¶15

The Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that on 21^st July, 2013, an order was passed, by which the said tenement was allotted to the Petitioner, and therefore, an order may be passed for placing the Writ Petitioner in possession of the said tenement.

¶16

It is not in dispute that when order dated 21^st July 2013 was passed, the Petitioner was posted in Vashi Police Station and now he has been transferred to Rabale Police Station. In view of the subsequent event, the concerned authorities of the police department will have to consider the application of the Petitioner afresh taking into account the service exigencies. Therefore, the concerned authority will have to consider the same application of the Petitioner on which order dated 21^st July 2013 has been passed afresh in accordance with the relevant policy.

¶17

There are various documents on record, including a letter dated 11^th July, 2012 addressed by Shri S.R. Patil, a Retired SubInspector of Police, who was the earlier occupant of the said tenement in which he has admitted that he has carried out extensions on the front and rear side as well as on the top of the said tenement. There is nothing on record to show that the said extensions were made with permission of the local authorities as well as the police

¶18

¶19

sg. 25.wp5807.2013.sxw

¶20

authorities. The police authorities will have to examine whether illegal additions and alterations have been carried out to the said tenement. If it is found that illegal additions and alterations have been carried out, the tenement will have to be restored to its original condition by taking proper steps according to law.

¶21

Hence, we dispose of the Petition by passing following order :-

¶22

(i) We accept the statement made by the third Respondent, who is personally present in the Court, through his Learned Counsel that he shall vacate the said tenement on or before 31^st January, 2014. We also accept the statement made by the third Respondent that for the time being, he is not interested in allotment of any Government quarters;

¶23

(ii) In view of the aforesaid statements, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside, as the prayer made by the third Respondent for allotment of the said tenement will not survive. Accordingly, we quash and set aside the impugned order dated 7^th March, 2012 only on the basis of the aforesaid statements made by the third respondent;

¶24

(iii) The concerned police authorities shall examine whether additions or alterations carried out by Shri S.R. Patil have been lawfully carried out. If the additions and alterations have not been lawfully carried out, the police authorities shall restore the tenement to its original condition;

25.wp5807.2013.sxw

sg.

(iv) We direct the concerned authorities of the police department to consider the application of the Petitioner for allotment of service quarters in accordance with law. We direct that the same application on the basis of which the order of allotment was made to the Petitioner on 21^st July, 2012 shall be considered afresh as per the prevailing policy for allotment of service quarters. We make it clear that we have not made any adjudication on the question of entitlement of the Petitioner to the allotment of the said tenement ;

¶29

(v) The application made by the Petitioner shall be decided as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from today;

¶30

(vi) If the third Respondent does not vacate the said tenement on or before 31^st January 2014, appropriate proceedings shall be initiated against the third Respondent for evicting him from the said tenement. If the third Respondent vacates the said tenement on or before 31^st January, 2014, the House Rent Allowance shall be paid to the third Respondent immediately from the day he vacates the said tenement.

¶31

(vii) The Petition is accordingly disposed of on above terms.

¶32

¶33

sg. 25.wp5807.2013.sxw

¶34

(viii) We may clarify here that the action of demolition of alterations/additions shall be taken by the police authorities after 31^st January 2014.

¶35

(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.) (A.S.OKA, J.)

Samadhan Baban Nikalje v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samadhan Baban Nikalje 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krantiveer Vasantrao Narayanrao Naik Shikshan Prasarak Sanstha, Nashik, through Chairman and Ors. Vs University of Pune, through Registrar and Ors.

Pimpari Prashala Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mungshi Vidayalaya Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

The Tasgaon Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Anr. Vs Vishwas Pandurang Nikam and Ors.

Rita Abhang Deore Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Social Justice Department and Ors.