Allowed

Dilip Umrao Jagtap v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Feb 2014PIL/60/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad allowed the petitioner. The court quashed the order of the Revenue Minister that had set aside a demand for Rs. 1,69,95,741/-. The court recorded the parties agreement to a time-bound payment plan, directing no coercive action until December 31, 2014, and prohibiting further proceedings once the balance is paid.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; order of Minister quashed; no coercive measures till 31.12.2014 if initial deposit is made by 31.05.2014 and balance by 31.12.2014; no further proceedings on full payment.

Dilip Umrao Jagtap Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

PIL/60/2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 60 OF 2011

¶5

DILIP UMRAO JAGTAP VERSUS THE STATE OF MAH AND ORS

¶6

Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Shailesh P.Brahme AGP for Respondents 1 to 4 : Shri Sujit G.Karlekar Advocate for Respondent 5 : Shri P.D.Bachate

¶7

CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ. Dated: February 12, 2014

¶8

PER COURT :-

¶9

This PIL challenges the order passed by respondent No.1 on 5.4.2011 and an order dated 27.5.2009 of respondent No.2.

¶10

What has transpired is that by an order dated 5.4.2011, the Minister of Revenue, Government of Maharashtra has allowed a Revision Application, which was preferred by respondent Nos. 5 to 10 and has quashed and set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner, Nasik, dated 27.5.2009, and that of the District Collector, Dhule dated 19.11.2008.

¶11

There is a modification to the order passed on 11.5.2005 by the District Collector, Dhule and the prior order of 20.11.2001 and thereafter, certain operative directions have been issued.

¶12

The matter pertains to the alleged loss caused to the public exchequer

¶13

/ Government of Maharashtra, upon breach of the terms and conditions on which, the piece of land, now in Dhule Municipal limits, was allotted to the

¶14

PIL/60/2011

¶15

¶16

predecessor-in-title of these respondents. The terms and conditions were violated, according to the authorities and therefore for regularization of the dealings and transactions in relation to this land that the authorities imposed upon the concerned respondents a condition and to pay a sum of Rs. 1,16,95,741/-. The break-up of the same has been enumerated in the chart, which appears at page No.68 of the petition paper book (Annexure "L").

¶17

It is stated that this amount is scaled down or reduced, and to a very negligible sum, and the interference by the Minister in the proceedings has caused the loss to the public exchequer or the State.

¶18

We have heard Shri Brahme, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner and Shri Bachate, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No. 5. We indicated to Shri Bachate, learned Advocate that if the concerned respondents are agreeable to pay the sum as enumerated at page No.68 of the petition paper book (Annexure "L") and quantified as above, then we would consider sympathetically the request to grant some time to pay the same.

¶19

The matter was adjourned at the request of Shri Bachate, learned Advocate and to enable him to take instructions. Upon taking instructions, Shri Bachate agrees that the present Writ Petition can be disposed of by quashing and setting aside the order of the Minister dated 5.4.2011 and the consequential order and directions but by confirmation of the figure of Rs. 1,69,95,741/-.

¶20

PIL/60/2011

¶21

¶22

Shri Bachate, learned Advocate submits that in the light of the alienations already effected and there is residential structure for use and occupation for these respondents, they will not be in a position to pay the sum immediately. They fear that coercive measures may be initiated to recover the sum.

¶23

After hearing both counsel on this point for some time and with this limited request, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be served, if we grant time to respondent Nos. 5 to 10 to pay the sum as quantified above. Since both sides agree for quashing and setting aside the order of the Minister and the consequential orders and since they are agreeing so today, no reasons be assigned by this Court.

¶24

Accordingly this Writ Petition is allowed. The order of the Minister and the consequential orders impugned in the petition are quashed and set aside. The statement made by the District Collector, Dhule on 28.8.2009, which is at page 68 of the petition paper book (Annexure "L") is accepted by both sides.

¶25

However, at the request of Shri Bachate, learned Advocate and in order to enable respondent Nos. 5 to 10 to pay this sum, we direct that no coercive measures shall be initiated till 31.12.2014 provided these respondents pay to the District Collector, Dhule a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rs. Fifty Lacs only/-) on/before 31.5.2014 and the balance sum of Rs.57,00,000/(Rs. Fifty Seven Lacs only/-) on/or before 31.12.2014.

¶26

PIL/60/2011

¶27

¶28

It is clarified that in the event a default is committed in making the deposit of initial payment of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rs. Fifty Lacs only/-) then the entire sum as quantified above, together with interest, as such rate as may be determined by the competent authority will be due and payable and all measures, including coercive, can be resorted to for the recovery of the said sum.

¶29

Needless to clarify that in the event, respondent Nos. 5 to 10 deposits sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rs. Fifty Lacs only/-) by 31.5.2014, then the coercive measures should not be taken till 31.12.2014 and in order to enable respondents 5 to 10 to deposit and pay the balance sum. In the event, default is made in deposit of the balance sum then liberty is given to recover the outstanding amount with interest at such rate as determined by the competent authority. Further, needless to clarify that when the entire sum is so deposited, the respondents and particularly the State and the Revenue authorities shall not initiate further proceedings to recover any sums and for regularization of the occupancy of the said respondents and of persons claiming through them.

¶30

14. Writ Petition is disposed of in these terms.

¶31

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ( S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. )

¶32

akl

Dilip Umrao Jagtap v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Umrao Jagtap v. the State of Mah and Ors.

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

Kamlakar Ramrao Sonwane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad Thr Its Registrar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Zafar Ali Khan Mehmood Ali Khan Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ms. Pushpa Chavan and Anr. Vs Mahanagar Gas Ltd. and Ors.

Shri. Ravindra Duttaram Waikar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rajendra Dashrathrao Datey Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Madhukar Dadmodharrao Sawant Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Milind Yashwantrao Dabhade and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Chinmayee Rajendra Ahirrao and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Avinash Prakash Mujage Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kamlakar Ramrao Sonwane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sudhakar Govind Bankar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bharat Uttam Raut Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Anil Tejrao Vargane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others