Disposed

Shri. Popat Ramchandra Lohar, through Power of Attorney Holder, Shri. Maruti Tukaram Chougale v. the District Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Aug 2014WP/12141/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In grouped writ petitions, the Bombay High Court directed the District Collector to decide applications for regularization of structures on gairan lands within sixty days, keeping merit open while maintaining ad-interim orders.

What did the court decide?

The District Collector shall decide the applications for regularisation within sixty days; ad-interim orders continue to operate.

Shri. Popat Ramchandra Lohar, through Power of Attorney Holder, Shri. Maruti Tukaram Chougale Vs the District Collector, Kolhapur and Ors. — Bombay HC (2014) — LawSathi Research

¶1

pvr 1/4 8wp12141-13grp.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.12141 OF 2013 Shri.Popat Ramchandra Lohar. ...Petitioner V/s. 1.The District Collector, Kolhapur & Ors. ...Respondents. AND WRIT PETITION NO.12142 OF 2013 Sou.Shobha Maruti Chougale. ...Petitioner V/s. 1.The District Collector, Kolhapur & Ors. ...Respondents. AND WRIT PETITION NO.12143 OF 2013 Maruti Tukaram Chougale. ...Petitioner V/s. 1.The District Collector, Kolhapur & Ors. ...Respondents. AND WRIT PETITION NO.12144 OF 2013 Shri.Shrikant Anna Patil. ...Petitioner V/s. 1.The District Collector, Kolhapur & Ors. ...Respondents. AND WRIT PETITION NO.12145 OF 2013 Shri.Pandit Ramchandra Lohar ...Petitioner V/s. 1.The District Collector, Kolhapur & Ors. ...Respondents.

¶5

4/4

¶6

pvr 2/4 8wp12141-13grp.doc

¶7

AND

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.12146 OF 2013

¶9

Shri.Bhagvan Balu Shinde ...Petitioner V/s. 1.The District Collector, Kolhapur & Ors. ...Respondents.

¶10

Mr.Mahesh Chandanshiv, for the Petitioners in all the Petitions.

¶11

Mr.Nitin Deshpande, AGP for Respondent nos.1 to 3 & 5 in all the Petitions.

¶12

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

¶13

DATED : AUGUST 22, 2014 .

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGP for the respondents. Learned Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the petitioners have invoked Section 51 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code,1966 (for short 'the said Code') and have applied for regularization of their structures.

¶16

The learned AGP submits that action of removal of encroachment has been initiated by the State Government by exercising powers under Section 50 of the said Code. He pointed out that admittedly the petitioners had encroached upon gairan lands and therefore, the said encroachments cannot be regularised. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relies upon the order dated 16^th December,2010 passed in Public Interest Litigation No.204 of 2010 (R.V.Bhuskute and another Vs. State of

¶17

4/4

¶18

pvr 3/4 8wp12141-13grp.doc

¶19

Maharashtra and another). The submission of the learned AGP is that in view of an order of the Apex Court, even if the regularization is permitted under the Government Resolutions of 1978 and 1991, the said Resolutions will have no legal effect.

¶20

An action has been initiated against the petitioners under Section 50 of the said Code. Under Section 51 of the said Code, a power is vested with the Collector to regularise the encroachments on the Government lands in accordance with law. Considering the fact that the statute has conferred power on the Collector, the applications made by the petitioners will have to be considered by the Collector in accordance with law. If the Collector is of the view that the law laid down by the Apex Court prevails and the regularisation of encroachments on a gairan land is not permissible, he is free to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The very fact that the petitioners have applied for regularisation shows that they have accepted the fact that they have encroached upon Government lands. In the applications for regularisation, the petitioners have not disputed the specific case made out in the notices served upon them that the encroachments are on the gairan lands. Therefore, while considering the applications for regularisation, the Collector has to consider whether he can exercise power of regularising the encroachments on gairan lands.

¶21

In view of the above discussion, the petitions are disposed of by passing the following order:-

¶22

ORDER

¶23

(a) We direct the District Collector to decide the applications for regularisation made by the petitioners (“Exhibit E” to the petitions) as

¶24

4/4

¶25

pvr 4/4 8wp12141-13grp.doc

¶26

expeditiously as possible, in any event, within a period of Sixty days from the date fixed for appearance of the petitioners before the Collector. If permissible in law, the Collector can place the applications for regularisation before the appropriate officer duly authorised to exercise the power under Section 51 of the said Code. We direct the petitioners to appear before the District Collector on 16^th September,2014 at 11 a.m. The petitioners shall produce authenticated copy of this judgment and order before the Collector;

¶27

(b) The order passed on the applications for regularisation shall be communicated to the petitioners. Till the date of communication of the orders, the ad-interim order dated 24^th December,2013 shall continue to operate;

¶28

(c) If the orders passed on the applications for regularisation be adverse to the petitioners, the ad-interim orders shall continue to operate for a period of three weeks from the date of communication of the orders;

¶29

(d) We make it clear that all the contentions of the parties on merits of the applications for regularisation are kept open and the Collector shall decide the applications in accordance with law.

¶30

4/4

Shri. Popat Ramchandra Lohar, through Power of Attorney Holder, Shri. Maruti Tukaram Chougale v. the District Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Popat Ramchandra Lohar, through Power of Attorney Holder, Shri. Maruti Tukaram Chougale v. the District Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pramod Ramchandra Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ashok Haridas Jagdale Vs the Collector, Solapur and Ors.

Wockhardt Hospitals Ltd. and Ors. Vs the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Renuka Land Developers and Builders, through Parnters Vs District Collector of Kolhapur and Anr.

Gururaj Dilip Pore Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Anr.

Maruti Tukaram Chougale Vs the District Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.