Quashed

Ashwini Dayanand Patil and Ors. v. Collector and Deputy Director Rehabilitation, Solapur and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Apr 2014WP/1209/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order setting aside land allotment to petitioners claiming ownership. Court quashes order solely for denial of natural justice, directsCollector to rehear parties, and notes land is for project affected persons.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; response fixed for 19.05.2014 for Collector to hear parties and pass appropriate order.

Ashwini Dayanand Patil and Ors. Vs Collector and Deputy… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

wp1209

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1209 OF 2013

¶5

Ashwini Dayanand Patil
and others...Petitioners
vs.
Collector and Deputy Director
Rehabilitation, Solapur ...Respondent

¶6

...Petitioners

¶7

Mr.Surel Shah for the Petitioners
Ms M.P.Thakur, AGP for the respondent Nos.1,2,4 and
5.

¶8

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 A.A.SAYED, JJ.
DATE : APRIL 9, 2014

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

1Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned AGP for the respondent Nos.1,2, 4
and 5. Notice is served to the respondent No.6.
Considering the order which we propose to pass, the
presence of the respondent No.6 may not be
necessary.

¶11

2The respondent No.6 was allotted the land
bearing Gat No.671, 220 and 747 situated at Marapur,
Taluka Mangalwedha, District Solapur as a project
affected person. The petitioners claim that though
initially the allotment of the lands was made on
new tenure, the condition of new tenure was
subsequently deleted by the respondent No.1. It is
contended that the respondent No.6 granted power of
attorney to one Balasaheb Patil authorising him to

¶12

2 wp1209

¶13

sell the said land. The said Constituted Attorney
sold the said lands to one Ashok Shrimant Patil. The
petitioners claim to have purchased the said lands
under the 3 different sale deeds. Copies of the
sale deeds have been annexed to the petition.

¶14

3The challenge in this petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India is to the order
dated 28th April/3rd May 2011 passed by the District
Collector and the Deputy Director of Rehabilitation,
Solapur by which the order of allotment of the land
has been set aside on the ground that the respondent
No.6 was already granted another land. A direction
was issued to resume the said lands. There is also a
challenge to the communication dated 11th November
2011. By the communication dated 11th November 2011,
an application made by the petitioners for the
allotment of the said lands has been rejected.

¶15

4The submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that when order dated 28th April/3rd
May 2011 was passed, the petitioners were already
holding the said lands under the three registered
sale deed. He, therefore, submitted that as the
petitioners were directly affected by the said order
of resumption, the petitioners ought to have been
heard before passing the said order. The submission
of the learned AGP is that the order dated 28th April
/3rd May 2011 is based on the fraud played by the
respondent No.6. Her submission is that though he
was admittedly allotted a land for resettlement as
per his entitlement, the said lands were again

¶16

3 wp1209

¶17

allegedly allotted to him which fact the respondent
No.6 accepted before the Collector.

¶18

5We have considered the submissions. It is not
necessary to go into the question whether the
respondent No.6 was entitled to transfer the said
lands to said Ashok Shrimant Patil and whether the
lands could have been further transferred to the
petitioners. The fact remains that on the date of
passing the aforesaid order, the petitioners were
claiming ownership on the basis of the registered
sale deeds. Therefore, the Collector ought to have
given an opportunity of being heard to the
petitioners. Only on this ground, the impugned order
will have to be set aside.

¶19

6The lands subject matter of this petition were
designated for allotment to the project affected
persons. Therefore, even if the petitioners
ultimately fail, only on the ground that they have
purchased the said lands, the petitioners are not
entitled to allotment of the said lands. The lands
vesting in the State will have to be allotted by
following procedure prescribed under the Land
Disposal Rules framed under the Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code,1966.

¶20

7Therefore, we dispose of this petition by
passing the following order:

¶21

(I)Impugned order dated 28th April/3rd May 2011
is quashed and set aside only on the ground of

¶22

4 wp1209

¶23

breach of principles of natural justice;

¶24

(II) We direct the petitioners and the respondent No.6 to appear before the District Collector cum Deputy Director of

¶25

Rehabilitation, Solapur on 19th May 2014 at
11.00 a.m for the purpose of fixing a date for
hearing;

¶26

(III) After giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners and the respondent No.6, the District Collector shall pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three months from 19^th May 2014;

¶27

(IV) All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open;

¶28

(V)Till the date of communication of the order
passed by the District Collector to the
petitioners, adinterim relief granted in terms
of clause (6) of the order dated 28th March 2013
will continue to operate. If the order be
adverse to the petitioners, the said order
shall continue to operate for a period of six
weeks from the date on which the communication
of the said order by the District Collector is
served to the petitioners or any one of them ;

¶29

(VI)We make it clear that appropriate order
shall be passed by the District Collector
without being influenced by the continuation of
adinterim relief by this Court.

¶30

(A.A.SAYED,J.)

Ashwini Dayanand Patil and Ors. v. Collector and Deputy Director Rehabilitation, Solapur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashwini Dayanand Patil and Ors. v. Collector and Deputy Director Rehabilitation, Solapur 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

Shri. Ashok Pandurang Mayekar Vs the Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Shri Baburao Maruti Dalavi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shivaji Babaji Kamble and Ors. Vs the Deputy Director for Rehabilitation and Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.

Shankar Ramchandra Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kshamanand P. Patil Vs Jayawantrao Gangaram Awale and Ors.

Devidas Mariappa Polke Vs State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Dept of Higher and Technical Edu. and Ors.