The High Court at Aurangabad reviewed a prior order dismissing a petition seeking acquisition of land. The Bench rejected the review, holding that the existence of a consent letter and a reciprocal arrangement remains a disputed question of fact, warranting no intervention.
The Review Application is rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
cast5912.04
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO.5912 OF 2004 IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2564 OF 2002
Baliram s/o Harischandra Londhe
...APPLICANT
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra
and others.
...RESPONDENTS
...
Shri A.B. Kale Advocate for Applicant.
Smt. S.D. Shelke, A.G.P. for Respondent
Nos. 1 to 4.
...
CORAM: A.V. NIRGUDE AND
A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.
DATE : 10TH SEPTEMBER, 2014
ORDER :
1. This Review Application seeks review of
Judgment and Order passed by this Court in Writ
Petition No.2564 of 2002 on 27th January, 2003.
The Judgment reads as under:
cast5912.04
2
". The petitioner seeks directions to the
respondents to initiate land acquisition
proceedings and to pass award in respect of
survey no. 293/A situated at Nilanga,
District Latur, in favour of the petitioner
to the extent of 1 Acre and 20 Are. The
respondents no.2, 4 and 5 have filed reply
in the matter.
2.We have heard the learned Advocate for
the petitioner and the learned Advocates
appearing on behalf of the respondents. The
learned Advocate for the petitioner states
that consent letter on the basis of which
the respondents are stated to have
constructed the road is not signed by the
petitioner. Xerox copy of the said consent
letter is at page 46. The learned Advocate
for the petitioner stated that even
assuming for a moment that the said consent
letter bears the signature of the
petitioner, there is no registered gift
deed or any other document or any material
to show that there was any reciprocal
arrangement entered into between the
petitioner and the respondents as alleged
cast5912.04
3
by the respondents. Once, the petitioner on
affidavit states that the consent letter
does not bear his signature, it does not
lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say
that it may be assumed that the said letter
is signed by the petitioner. The respondent
no.2 in reply, has urged that there was
reciprocalarrangementbetweenthe
petitioner and the Municipal Council
whereby the petitioner had given consent
for construction of the road for which he
will give land to the municipal council. It
is further stated in the affidavit that the
petitioner had given consent letter for
construction of road at the width of 20
feet from south side of the lay out, and he
has also promised that he is ready to give
land for two roads, as he has no approach
road to proceed to the main road. This fact
has also been disputed by the petitioner in
affidavit-in-rejoinder. This gives rise to
the disputed questions of facts which
cannot be decided by this Court. In view of
this, we are not inclined to entertain this
petition which involves disputed questions
of facts. In view of this, the petition is
summarily rejected."
cast5912.04
4
2.After delivery of this Judgment, the
Petitioner filed complaint to Police against
Municipal Counsel and others alleging that some
documents filed along with affidavit were forged.
The Petitioner is now trying to suggest that
during the police investigation, it was found that
the Petitioner has not written letter, stamp paper
etc. In other words, the Petitioner is trying to
suggest that whatever is stated in the affidavit
of the Municipal Council which is referred to in
the Judgment quoted above, could be false. On this
ground, the Petitioner wants us to reconsider the
case. In our view, the situation has not
substantially changed since then. The question as
to whether the Petitioner had given consent letter
for construction of road etc., is still disputed
fact between the parties. We, therefore do not
find any substance in this Review Application.
3.Learned counsel for the Petitioner
cast5912.04
5
submitted that the Respondent Municipal Council
ought to have filed reply to this Review
Application either denying or admitting the
alleged consent letter, which is annexed to this
Review Application.
4.Admittedly, the Municipal Council, Latur
has not submitted any reply; neither the State has
filed any reply. But we are not inclined to
consider this aspect of the case favourably to the
Petitioner. The parties apparently, are still at
variance on the facts. In that view of the matter,
we hold that even the present Review Application
gives rise to disputed questions of facts. Hence
Review Application is rejected.
[A.I.S.CHEEMA,J.] [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.]
asb/SEP/14
1 issue framed by the court
Whether this Court should entertain a review application when the original judgment involves disputed questions of fact regarding consent letters and reciprocal arrangements.
Baliram s/o Harischandra Londhe
The State of Maharashtra
A.V. Nirgude
A.I.S. Cheema
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court