Partly allowed

Solapur Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner v. Shri. Ajit Narsinha Taklikar and Ors.

Bombay HC19 Sept 2014RPW/141/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a review petition and recalled a previous order dismissing a writ petition, finding that the petitioner and predecessors suppressed material facts and played fraud on the court. The writ petition seeking declaration of abatement of ULC proceedings was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to appear for costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition No.8057 of 2014 dismissed; Review Petition No.18571 of 2014 allowed; Order dated 30.9.1997 in WP No.978 of 1997 recalled.

Solapur Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner Vs… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

cao-155.14 in rpwst-18571.14 in wp 978.97,8057.14

¶2

pmw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.155 OF 2014 IN REVIEW PETITION NO.18571 OF 2014 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.978 OF 1997

¶6

Solapur Municipal Corporation, Through its Commissioner … Petitioner Vs.

¶7

Shri. Ajit Narsinha Takalikar and Ors. … Respondents

¶8

WITH

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.8057 OF 2014

¶10

Narsinha Mahadeo Taklikar (deceased) Through Mr. Ajit Narsinha Taklikar … Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶11

Mr. Vijay Killedar, for the Applicant in CAO No.155 of 2014 and for Respondent No.5 in WP No.8057 of 2014.

¶12

Dr. Ramdas P. Sabban, for Petitioner in WP No.8057 of 2014 and for Respondent No.1 in CAO No.155 of 2014.

¶13

Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP, for the Respondent State.

¶14

CORAM : A.S. OKA & G.S. KULKARNI, JJ.

¶15

DATE : 19^th SEPTEMBER, 2014

¶16

P.C.

¶17

. The learned counsel appearing for the first Respondent in

¶18

the Review Petition has no objection for allowing the Review Petition

¶19

filed by the Solapur Municipal Corporation (for short “the said

¶20

1 of 22

¶21

cao-155.14 in rpwst-18571.14 in wp 978.97,8057.14

¶22

Corporation”). Therefore, the delay in filing the Review Petition is condoned. We must record here that for the reasons which we are recording, this is a fit case to recall the order passed in the Writ Petition No.978 of 1997 by allowing the Review Petition.

¶23

We have also heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.8057 of 2014. His submission in short is that the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 stand abated in respect of the land of the Petitioner therein which is declared as an excess land. He relied upon the fact that in the State, the Act has been repealed with effect from 29^th November, 2007. The contention is that the abatement of the proceedings is automatic. The contention of the learned counsel representing the Solapur Municipal Corporation is that at every stage, the Petitioner and his predecessor have played a fraud upon the Court and have suppressed material facts.

¶24

The father of the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.8057 of 2014 was claiming to be the owner of the land bearing Survey No.217 (Final Plot No.18 in T.P.S. No.III) admeasuring 83,579 square meters as well as the structure admeasuring 36.1 square meters bearing CTS No.4959. A declaration under Section 6 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short “the ULC Act”) was filed by the

¶25

2 of 22

¶26

cao-155.14 in rpwst-18571.14 in wp 978.97,8057.14

¶27

Petitioner's father Narsinha Mahadeo Taklikar (for short “Narsinha”). An order was passed on 17^th January, 1981 by the Competent Authority of the Solapur Urban Agglomeration declaring an area of 82,115.1 square meters as an excess land (for short “the excess land”) out of the total area of 83,579 square meters. Narsinha preferred an Appeal against the said order of the Competent Authority. By order dated 26^th July, 1982, the Appeal was dismissed.

¶28

A part of the excess land was reserved under the development plan initially for a slaughter house as well as for housing for freedom fighters. It appears that advance possession of an area of 19,626.12 square meters (for short “said land”) out of the excess land was taken over by the Solapur Municipal Corporation on 22^nd September, 1983 by paying compensation of Rs.20,908/ to Narsinha which is an admitted position. Narsinha filed Writ Petition No.385 of 1989 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by impleading the Solapur Municipal Corporation as first Respondent. A prayer was made for restoration of possession of the area of 19,626.12 square meters from the Municipal Corporation. By the Judgment and Order dated 1^st October, 1996, the said Writ Petition was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court. In paragraph 9 of the Judgment, elaborate findings have been recorded by the Division Bench holding that there was a

¶29

3 of 22

¶30

cao-155.14 in rpwst-18571.14 in wp 978.97,8057.14

¶31

gross suppression of material facts by Narsinha. There is a specific finding recorded by this Court that in order to obtain interim relief, he has made false statements. There is a clear finding recorded against Narsinha that averments have been made in the Petition not only to deceive the Respondents but also to obtain favourable orders from the Court. There is a clear finding recorded that Narsinha played fraud not only upon the Respondents to the Petition but also tried his utmost to mislead this Court. Therefore, this Court, by a detailed Judgment proceeded to dismiss the Petition by directing Narsinha to pay costs of Rs.5,000/. We must also note here that the challenge to the alleged illegality committed by the Solapur Municipal Corporation of taking over the possession of the said land was concluded by the Judgment and Order of this Court as the prayer in the said Petition was for restoration of possession of the said land from the Municipal Corporation on the ground that the possession of the Municipal Corporation was illegal.

¶32

The matter did not end there. Writ Petition No.978 of 1997

¶33

was filed by the Narsinha in this Court. In paragraph 2 of the said Petition, he referred to the proceedings under the ULC Act which culminated into a notice dated 7^th January, 1995 under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act. It refers to the notification under Section 10(3) of the

¶34

4 of 22

¶35

cao-155.14 in rpwst-18571.14 in wp 978.97,8057.14

¶36

ULC Act issued on 25^th September, 1993. There is a categorical assertion by Narsinha that on the basis of the notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act, on 16^th February, 1995 the possession of the excess land was taken under a kabjepatti even though “it was protested”. The Petition was filed on the basis of a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Udhav Tatya Bhople Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others (1992 M.L.J. 1432) . There is a categorical assertion in the said Petition that the excess land falls in the Zonal Plan of the Municipal Corporation. It is stated that under the aforesaid decision of this Court, it is held that a Zonal Plan is not a master plan. The prayer clause (c) in the said Petition was for issuing a writ of mandamus to the Respondents to restore back the possession of the acquired land (the excess land) by making necessary entries in the revenue records. It is pertinent to note that the Municipal Corporation which was in possession of said land admeasuring 19,626.12 square meters out of the land declared as the excess land was not even made a party to the said Writ Petition. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 30^th September, 1997 by the Division Bench of this Court in terms of the minutes of the order. Paragraph 3 of the Minutes of the Order records that in view of the Judgment of this Court in the case of Udhav Tatya Bhopale and the Cabinet decision of the Maharashtra Government dated 16^th September, 1997, the orders passed under the ULC Act in relation to the said land

¶37

5 of 22

¶38

cao-155.14 in rpwst-18571.14 in wp 978.97,8057.14

¶39

stand quashed and set aside. Paragraph 4 of the Minutes of Order reads

¶40

thus :

¶41

“4. The petitioner states that he continues to be in possession of the land although the Respondents have maintained that they had taken possession of the lands under a possession receipt. The Respondents agree that the petitioner is now in lawful possession of the said lands and the possession receipt stands cancelled. The respondents have not created any third party right in the said lands on the basis of paper possession. However, if any rights are created on these lands by the Respondents, they stand abrogated and cancelled forthwith. The petitioner hereby declares and agrees that he does not have right and does not hereby claim any compensation or damages for the acquisition proceedings from the respondents.”

¶42

Paragraph 5 records an undertaking of Narsinha to refund

¶43

the amount of compensation received by him to the Respondents. It is pertinent to note that the compensation was paid to the Petitioner by the Municipal Corporation in relation to the said land admeasuring 19,626.12 square meters. The Municipal Corporation is not a party to the said Petition. Admittedly, the Petitioner was dispossessed under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act in relation to the excess land on 6^th February, 1995. The Petitioner lost possession of an area of more than 19,626.12 square meters to the Municipal Corporation in the year 1983 and the Petition for restoration of possession by Narsinha was dismissed by this Court on the ground that he has played fraud upon the Respondents and the Court. Notwithstanding all this, in the Minutes of

¶44

6 of 22

¶45

cao-155.14 in rpwst-18571.14 in wp 978.97,8057.14

¶46

the Order, it is recorded that the Petitioner is in possession of the entire land which was declared as excess land which includes the said land put in possession of the Municipal Corporation. The statements in paragraph 4 of the Minutes of Order are contrary to the averments made in paragraph 2 of the Petition regarding the dispossession on the basis of the notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act.

¶47

The third Respondent in the Review Petition is Ajit who is the son of Narsinha (since deceased) who is the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.8057 of 2014. We must note here that now the learned counsel representing the third Respondent in the Review Petition and the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.8057 of 2014 concedes that the excess land in question was never situated in the area of Zonal Plan and, therefore, the Judgment in the case of Udhav Tatya Bhopale was not applicable to the excess land. Therefore, he has no objection for recalling the order passed in Writ Petition No.978 of 1987 in terms of the Minutes of Order. There are three important aspects which need to be noted. Firstly, the Petition No.978 of 1997 was affirmed on 19^th February, 1997. On 1^st October, 1996, Writ Petition No.385 of 1989 filed by Narsinha seeking possession of the said land against the Municipal Corporation was dismissed. Though the Municipal Corporation was in possession of the said land admeasuring 19,626.12

¶48

7 of 22

¶49

cao-155.14 in rpwst-18571.14 in wp 978.97,8057.14

¶50

square meters, in the said Petition filed in the year 1997, the said Narsinha did not implead the Municipal Corporation as a Respondent. Secondly, the statement made in paragraph 2 of Writ Petition No.978 of 1997 that the possession of the excess land was taken over under Section 10(5), is a statement made on personal knowledge of the Narsinha as found from the original affirmed Petition which is placed by the Registry before this Court. Thirdly, a categorical statement on oath was made by the Petitioner in paragraph No.3 of the said Petition of 1997 that the excess land comes under the Residential Zone as per the Zonal Plan of the Municipal Corporation. Even the said statement is made on oath on the personal knowledge by Narsinha. Today, it is conceded by his son that the excess land was never situated in the Zonal Plan and, therefore, the decision in the case of Udhav Tatya Bhople was never applicable to the said land. Thus, a false statement was made in the Petition that the land was included in the Zonal Plan. A fraud is played upon the Court by not impleading the Municipal Corporation though the Municipal Corporation was in possession of the part of the excess land. There was also a prayer made for quashing the order of the Competent Authority under Section 8(4) of the ULC Act. In the Minutes of Order a solemn statement was recorded that the said Narsinha is in possession of the entire excess land. The statement was not only incorrect but was contrary to the express statement on oath in

¶51

8 of 22

¶52

cao-155.14 in rpwst-18571.14 in wp 978.97,8057.14

¶53

paragraph 2 of the Petition which was a statement as per his personal knowledge. Now, the legal representative of Narsinha is conceding for setting aside the order passed on the basis of the Minutes of Order. We must note here that by playing fraud upon the Court, the said order has been obtained and therefore, even without Review Petition filed by the Municipal Corporation, the said order will have to be recalled. We are shocked to know that notwithstanding the factual aspects which we have narrated above, the Minutes of Order was signed by the then Government Pleader without any protest. Therefore, the order in that Writ Petition will have to be recalled by allowing the Review Petition. The Writ Petition will have to be dismissed.

¶54

The matter does not rest here. There are further proceedings filed after 1997 Petition. Writ Petition No.10379 of 2009 was filed by the son of Narsinha (the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.8057of 2014). The prayer therein was for declaring the proceedings under the ULC Act in relation to the excess land as abated in the light of the Repeal Act which came into force on 29^th November, 2007. It will be necessary to make a reference to the averments made in the said Petition. In paragraph 3 of the Petition, Narsinha's son Ajit has stated that a notice under Section 10(5) of the ULC Act was served for delivery of possession. Further statements made in paragraph 3 of the Petition

¶55

9 of 22

¶56

cao-155.14 in rpwst-18571.14 in wp 978.97,8057.14

¶57

read thus :

¶58

“................. The possession could not be delivered or taken by the Competent Authority, due to various reasons, like illegal occupation of portion of land by the Solapur Municipal Corporation. The petitioner further states the deceased landholder father of the petitioner had challenged the said ULC land acquisition and for certain other reliefs for payment of compensation from the Solapur Municipal Corporation, by filing Writ Petition No.385 of 1989, which came to be rejected by order dated 01101996. The petitioner also filed the W.P. No.978/1997 which was allowed by order dated 30091997.”

¶59

Thus, Narsinha's son makes a statement that though notice under Section 10(5) was served, the possession of the excess land could not be delivered or taken by the Competent Authority due to various reasons. This is completely contrary to the statements on oath made by Narsinha in Petition No.978 of 1997 in which he accepted that on the basis of the notice under Section 10(5), the possession of the excess land was taken over. In the same paragraph, Narsinha's son has referred to Writ Petition No.978 of 1997. There were clear averments made in the said earlier Petition wherein his father admitted that possession of the excess land was taken over. Curiously, Shri Sambhaji Shivajirao Chavan, the Deputy Collector and Competent Authority, Solapur Urban Agglomeration, Solapur filed an affidavitinreply dated 17^th March, 2010 making a statement that the State Government has agreed before the Court that the Petitioner is in lawful possession of the

¶60

10 of 22

¶61

cao-155.14 in rpwst-18571.14 in wp 978.97,8057.14

¶62

land and the possession receipt dated 16^th February, 1995 is cancelled. The order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the said Petition reads thus :

¶63

“1. In view of the reply affidavit filed by Sambhaji Shivajirao Chavan, Deputy Collector and Competent Authority, Solapur Urban Agglomeration, District Solapur, dated 17^th March 2010 coupled with the statement of respondents recorded in Writ Petition No.978 of 1997 in order dated 30^th September 1997 to the effect that the petitioner continues to be in possession of the land, counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this petition with liberty to question the action of acquisition in respect of the disputed land, if and when necessary. Petition is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.”

¶64

The said order records a statement of the Deputy Collector

¶65

in the affidavit that the Petitioner continues to be in possession of the land and on that basis, the Petition was withdrawn with liberty to question the action of acquisition in respect of the said land. We must record here that when 1997 Petition was disposed of, the Advocate who represented Narsinha represented Narsinha's son in this Petition. Again the Solapur Municipal Corporation is not impleaded as a party in this Petition.

¶66

Then comes the Writ Petition No.3506 of 2011 filed by Narsinha's son Ajit in which a Writ of Mandamus was sought directing completion of acquisition of the area of 19,383.53 square meters which

¶67

11 of 22

¶68

cao-155.14 in rpwst-18571.14 in wp 978.97,8057.14

¶69

was taken over by the Municipal Corporation in the year 1983. Shockingly, the Municipal Corporation is not made a party to this Petition when the Petitioner fully knew that it is the Municipal Corporation which is in possession of the said land. In paragraph 9 of the Petition, it is claimed that the Petitioner is the owner of the land in possession of the Municipal Corporation. Surprisingly, a copy of the Judgment and Order dated 1^st October, 1996 in Writ Petition No.385 of 1989, by which the Petition filed by Narsinha for possession of the said land from the Municipal Corporation was dismissed was not annexed to this Petition. The Petitioner ought to have impleaded the Municipal Corporation as a party to the said Petition and ought to have annexed a copy of the said order which concludes the issue of possession of the said land by the Municipal Corporation. In fact, the said issue was no longer open in the light of the Judgment and Order dated 1^st October, 1996.

¶70

The matter does not rest here. There is a further Petition filed by the Petitioner (in Writ Petition No.8057 of 2014) being Writ Petition No.11480 of 2012 seeking a direction to the Collector to decide the applications made by the Petitioner in the year 20112012 seeking a direction for completion of the acquisition proceedings. The said Petition was disposed of on 12^th December, 2012 by directing the

¶71

12 of 22

¶72

cao-155.14 in rpwst-18571.14 in wp 978.97,8057.14

¶73

Collector to dispose of the representation. Again to this Petition, the Petitioner did not implead the Municipal Corporation as a party. If the Municipal Corporation would have been impleaded as a party, the Municipal Corporation would have certainly pointed out that the issue regarding taking over of the possession of the said land admeasuring 19,383.12 square meters by the Municipal Corporation has attained finality by virtue of the Judgment and Order dated 1^st October, 1996 passed in Writ Petition No.385 of 1989 filed by Narsinha.

¶74

Thus, right from the year 1997, in every Petition which is filed by the Petitioner or his father till the year 2012, the Municipal Corporation was not impleaded as a party though it was a necessary and proper party. This is in the background of the fact that by Judgment and Order dated 1^st October, 1996, the Petition filed by Narsinha challenging the action of the Municipal Corporation of taking over possession of an area of 19,626.12 square meters was dismissed by holding that Narsinha has played a fraud upon the Court. If the Municipal Corporation would have been impleaded as a party in all the Petitions right from the year 1997, none of the orders passed by the Court would have been passed. Thus, this is a clear case where not only that the present Petitioner and the Petitioner's father have indulged in suppression of material facts, but they have played fraud upon the

¶75

13 of 22

¶76

cao-155.14 in rpwst-18571.14 in wp 978.97,8057.14

¶77

Court by filing Petitions without impleading the Municipal Corporation which was a necessary party to all the Petitions.

¶78

In the light of the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No.11480 of 2012, the Collector has passed an order dated 3^rd June, 2014. What was directed to be decided by the Collector was one of the representations dated 18^th December, 2012 made by the Advocate for the Petitioner. Paragraph 3 of the said representation reads thus :

¶79

“(3) Thereafter, the SMC took no further steps to acquire the said land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as the said land was subjected to the acquisition under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976. Thereafter, the Hon'ble High Court by order dt. 30091997 in Writ Petition No.978 of 1997 quashed & set aside all the proceedings in the U.L.C. Case No.SR. I. 1123 of Mr. Taklikar, which has been further upheld by order dt.13 042010 passed in the Writ Petition No.10379 of 2009. The Competent Authority, Solapur Urban Agglomeration by letter dt.08042009 has already intimated that the possession of the said lands is not taken by that office. By Resolution dated 29112007, both the Houses of the Maharashtra State Legislature have already adopted to apply the provisions of Sec. 2 & 3 the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 to the Maharashtra State, which provide that ULC acquisition proceedings shall abate & lapse, where possession of lands is not taken by the Competent Authority on or before 29112007. Thus the said land is now free from the acquisition proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976, and thus the petitioner has become the legal owner & titleholder of the said land & the revenue property card records also establish the same.”

¶80

14 of 22

¶81

cao-155.14 in rpwst-18571.14 in wp 978.97,8057.14

¶82

It was reiterated that in view of the Repeal Act, the proceedings under the ULC Act will lapse. This paragraph shows that an undue advantage was sought to be taken of the order dated 30^th September, 1997 in Writ Petition No.978 of 1997. The said order was relied upon for contending that the proceedings under the ULC Act have lapsed. On the basis of the order of this Court, the Collector passed an order dated 3^rd June, 2014 issuing following directions :

¶83

“(a) The representations of the Applicant dated 31/01/2011 and 21/11/2012 are partly allowed.

¶84

(b) It is ordered that the original land owner should be given compensation either by way of mutual agreement between the Corporation and the land owner by following due procedure laid down by Govt and if this do not becomes feasible then by way of acquiring the land by following process in Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act 1956. Therefore Solapur Municipal Corporation is directed to act accordingly.

¶85

¶86

Without noticing that the issue regarding the possession of the Municipal Corporation has been concluded, the Collector has issued the aforesaid directions to acquire the land the possession of which was taken over in the year 1983, for which Narsinha has admitted to have received compensation. In fact the said land in possession of the Municipal Corporation is a part of the excess land which vests in the State by virtue of subsections (3) and (5) of Section 10 of ULC Act.

¶87

15 of 22

¶88

cao-155.14 in rpwst-18571.14 in wp 978.97,8057.14

¶89

In present Writ Petition No.8057 of 2014, now the prayer is for a declaration that the proceedings under the ULC Act stand abated in view of the Repeal Act. A prayer is made for setting aside the order of the Collector dated 3^rd June, 2014. Shockingly, the Petitioner Ajit has himself made a prayer for recalling the order dated 30^th September, 1997 passed in Writ Petition No.978 of 1997. This is because the said order proceeds on the footing that the ULC Act is not applicable. There is a prayer made for directing the Municipal Corporation to acquire the said land. There is also a relief sought of restoration of the land taken over by the Municipal Corporation by demolishing the tenements constructed by the Municipal Corporation. This relief was rejected in Writ Petition No.385 of 1989 filed by Narsinha by holding that Narsinha has indulged in playing fraud upon the Court and the Respondents. It will be necessary to make a reference to the averments made in the present Petition. In the Petition, a blame is sought to be shifted on the Municipal Corporation for not applying for review of the order in Writ Petition No.978 of 1997 to which the Municipal Corporation ought to have been made a party but was not made a party. Specific averments have been made in clause (B) of paragraph 10 of this Petition blaming the Municipal Corporation for not moving the application for review of the order in Writ Petition No.978 of 1997. As we have held earlier, the order was passed in Writ Petition No.978 of 1997 on the basis of fraud

¶90

16 of 22

¶91

cao-155.14 in rpwst-18571.14 in wp 978.97,8057.14

¶92

played by Narsinha on this Court and now the stand taken is that the Municipal Corporation did not apply for review. In the entire Petition, it is not pointed out that in the Petition of the year 1997, Petitioner's father Narsinha had admitted that the possession of the excess land was taken on the basis of a notice under Section 10(5) dated 7^th January, 1995. In paragraph 3 of the Petition, there is a reference to the said notice under Section 10(5). In paragraph 6, there is an averment that possession of the excess land was not taken over under the ULC Act. Again in paragraph 9, it is reiterated that possession was not taken over under the ULC Act. The Petitioner ought to have disclosed the statements made in the Petition of the year 1997. There is one more aspect which needs to be noted. Notwithstanding the fact that the Petitioner was aware of the dismissal of the Writ Petition No.385 of 1989, the Petitioner applied for restoration of the said land from the Municipal Corporation.

¶93

At the time of last hearing, such conduct on the part of the Petitioner Ajit and his predecessor was pointed out to the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. Today, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has tendered a note on record which according to him contains mitigating factors. It is sought to be contended that an advantage was not taken of the order dated 30^th

¶94

17 of 22

¶95

cao-155.14 in rpwst-18571.14 in wp 978.97,8057.14

¶96

September, 1997. It is sought to be contended that in the year 1997, the Petitioner never knew that in the year 2007, the ULC Act would be repealed. We have already made a reference to the representation made before the Collector in which the Petitioner has specifically tried to take advantage of the said order.

¶97

To summarize, Narsinha, the predecessor of the present Petitioner indulged in suppression of material facts. While filing Writ Petition No.978 of 1997, he failed to implead the Municipal Corporation which was a necessary and proper party. Notwithstanding the admission in the Petition itself that he had lost possession of the excess land under Section 10(5), in the Minutes of Order, a statement was incorporated that he continues to be in possession. It is not the case of Narsinha or his son who is the Petitioner in the present Petition that after 16^th February, 1995, the possession of the excess land was again restored to them. A false statement was made that the land is covered by the Zonal Plan. Today, it is admitted that the said statement was not correct.

¶98

In all subsequent Petitions to which we have made reference, the Municipal Corporation which was in possession of the said land was not impleaded as a party. The learned counsel appearing

¶99

18 of 22

¶100

cao-155.14 in rpwst-18571.14 in wp 978.97,8057.14

¶101

for the Petitioner, at this stage, submits that what was ordered to be decided by the Collector was a representation dated 22^nd November, 2012. We must note here that in the Writ Petition No.978 of 1997, there was a categorical statement made that on 16^th February, 1995, Narsinha was dispossessed on the basis of a notice under Section 10(5). In paragraph 3 of the said representation, there is a categorical statement made that the possession of the excess land was not taken over till 29^th November, 1997 and it is contended that the Repeal Act will apply. In paragraph 4 of the same representation dated 22^nd November, 2012, it is contended that though the said land was put in possession of the Solapur Municipal Corporation on 22^nd September, 1983, there is no title vesting in the Municipal Corporation. It was the duty of the Petitioner to point out that the Petition filed by his father, claiming relief of the possession against the Municipal Corporation, was dismissed on the ground of his father playing fraud upon the Court.

¶102

To conclude, at every stage, Narsinha as well as his son, who is the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.8057 of 2014 have indulged in suppression of material facts. They have deliberately failed to implead the Municipal Corporation as a party to the Petitions. We are constrained to observe that by obtaining order dated 30^th September 1997, a fraud has been played upon the Court as well as on the Respondents.

¶103

19 of 22

¶104

cao-155.14 in rpwst-18571.14 in wp 978.97,8057.14

¶105

We may also observe here that even the Competent Authority under the ULC Act is a party to the fraud as the truth was never pointed out to this Court right from the year 1997. On the contrary, an affidavit is filed by Shri Sambhaji Shivajirao Chavan, the Deputy Collector and Competent Authority in Writ Petition No.10703 of 2009 accepting the case of the Petitioner that he is in possession and that possession receipt dated 16^th February, 1995 has been cancelled.

¶106

Therefore, considering the conduct of the Petitioner, Writ Petition No.8057 of 2014 will have to be dismissed. The Petitioner has invoked discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The conduct of the Petitioner disentitles him to any discretionary relief.

¶107

Now, the question remains in what manner the Petitioner can be penalised. The other issue is in what manner erring officers of the State should be penalised.

¶108

Today, the Petitioner Ajit is not present. It is stated that his

¶109

son is present. Before we pass an order regarding taking action against him, his presence before the Court will have to be ensured. Hence, we pass the following order :

¶110

20 of 22

¶111

cao-155.14 in rpwst-18571.14 in wp 978.97,8057.14

¶112

ORDER

¶113

(i) Writ Petition No.8057 of 2014 is dismissed for the reasons recorded above. As far as the issue of costs is concerned and action, if any, is concerned, appropriate order will be passed after hearing the Petitioner in the Writ Petition on the next date;

¶114

(ii) Civil Application No.155 of 2014 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Review Petition (St.) No.18571 of 2014 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). We recall the order dated 30^th September, 1997 passed in Writ Petition No.978 of 1997;

¶115

(iii) In view of the findings recorded in this order, Writ Petition No.978 of 1997 stands dismissed;

¶116

(iv) We direct the Petitioner in Writ Petition No.8057 of 2014 to personally remain present in this Court. We also direct Shri Sambhaji Shivajirao Chavan, the Deputy Collector and Competent Authority to personally remain present in this Court. Both of them shall personally remain present in this Court on 8^th October, 2014;

¶117

(v) On the next date, this Court will consider three issues : (1) The quantification of costs payable by the Petitioner of Writ Petition No.8057 of 2014 in the Writ Petition as

¶118

21 of 22

¶119

cao-155.14 in rpwst-18571.14 in wp 978.97,8057.14

¶120

well as in the Review Petition, (2) The second issue will

¶121

be what action, if any, can be taken against the Petitioner in the said Writ Petition, and (3) What action can be taken against the erring officers of the State Government including Shri Sambhaji Shivajirao Chavan, the Deputy Collector and Competent Authority;

¶122

(vi) The office of the Government Pleader shall communicate the direction given by this Court to the concerned officer immediately. Presence of the said officer shall be ensured by the Government Pleader before this Court.

¶123

(vii) We make it clear that this order will not be available immediately. Notwithstanding the fact that the order is not available, it is the duty of the Government Pleader to communicate the order to the concerned officer;

¶124

(viii) The original file of Writ Petition No.978 of 1997 shall remain in the custody of the Registrar (JudicialI) of this Court.

¶125

(G.S. KULKARNI, J )

¶126

22 of 22

Solapur Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner v. Shri. Ajit Narsinha Taklikar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Solapur Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner v. Shri. Ajit Narsinha Taklikar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Meenakshii Ramdas Thakar Vs Divisional Caste, Scrutiny Committee NO.1, Solapur and Anr.

Mehad Mohd. Tanveer Vs Mohammed Tanveer

Smt. Meenakshii Ramdas Thakar Vs Divisional Caste, Scrutiny Committee NO.1, Solapur and Anr.

Shri Narsinha Mahadeo Taklikar Vs the State of Mah'Tra and Ors.

Narsinha Mahadeo Taklikar (Since Decd) through Mr. Ajit N. Taklikar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ayesha Idris Naikwadi Vs Commissioner, Sangli Miraj and Kupwad City Municipal Corporation, Sangli and Ors.