Disposed

Ramkrishna v. Khot and Ors. v the Collector Sindhudurg and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Feb 2014WP/1830/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A petitioner challenged the State Government's failure to recover dues under a land revenue code order. The Court found that officials recovered the money only after the petition, attributing negligence to them, and awarded costs to the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition and Civil Application were disposed of with a direction to the State to pay Rs.25,000 costs to the Petitioners.

Ramkrishna v Khot and Ors. Vs the Collector Sindhudurg and… — Money Laundering | Bombay HC (2014)

pmw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1830 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1396 OF 2013 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1830 OF 2011

¶6

Shri Ramkrishna V. Khot and others … Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

The Collector, Sindhudurg and others … Respondents

¶9

Mr. N.V. Walawalkar, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. Suresh B. Sabrad, for the Petitioners.

¶10

Mr. A.B. Vagyani, Additional Government Pleader, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶11

Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar, for Respondent No.4.

¶12

¶13

CORAM : A.S. OKA & M.S. SONAK, JJ.

¶14

DATE : 11^th FEBRUARY, 2014

¶15

P.C.

¶16

. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the

¶17

Petitioners. The affidavit of Shri Dnyaneshwar Suresh Khutwad, the Resident Deputy Collector, Sindhudurg District, affirmed on 7th February, 2014 shows that the entire balance amount of Rs.12,27,580/ has been recovered from the Respondent No.4.

1 of 5

The prayer in the Writ Petition is for issuing a Writ of Mandamus directing the State Government to take effective steps to recover a sum of Rs.14,27,580/ due and payable by the Respondent No.4. This was the amount payable on the basis of the order dated 6th October, 2009 passed by the District Collector in exercise of powers under Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The Petition is pending. The Petition was filed on 1st February, 2011. The first affidavit filed by the Resident Deputy Collector was of 16 th March, 2011 in which an assurance was given that the State was making all possible efforts to recover the money. There is one more affidavit filed on 19th December, 2013 by Shri Dnyaneshwar Suresh Khutwad, the Resident Deputy Collector in which it was stated that there is a Boat and a Dumper owned by the fourth Respondent which are not traceable within the Jurisdiction of Tahsildar at Malvan and, therefore, on 20th July, 2011, the Tahsildar had addressed a letter to the Police Inspector to seize the Boat and the Dumper.

¶21

In Civil Application No.1396 of 2013, this Court has dealt with the said affidavit. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said order which read thus :

¶22

“2. We have perused the said affidavit. We find from the affidavit that there appears to be a complete inaction on the part of the Revenue Officers. It is stated that a

2 of 5

dumper bearing registration No.MH07/C6348 and a Boat bearing No.MLN/82/2009 owned by the fourth Respondent are not traceable within the jurisdiction of Tahsildar, Malvan. We find that as far as dumper is concerned, except for reporting to the Police authorities on 25th April, 2012, no steps have been taken thereafter to trace the dumper. The learned counsel appearing for the Applicant, on instructions of the Applicant, states that the said dumper is being regularly and openly used in Malvan Taluka by the fourth Respondent. In any event, paragraph 7 and 8 of the affidavit tendered today show that no steps have been taken by the officers of the Revenue Department for tracing boat and dumper after May2012. There appears to be gross inaction and neglect on the part of the Officers of the fourth Respondent.

¶26

Before we consider prayer clause (a) on merits, we direct Mr. Dnyaneshwar Khutwad, Resident Deputy Collector, Sindhudurg to take immediate steps for tracing out the dumper and the boat and thereafter to put the same for sale. We direct that all possible steps shall be taken as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from today.”

¶27

Affidavit dated 7th February, 2014 tendered by the said officer records that in view of the order passed by this Court, the Tahsildar seized the dumper owned by the fourth Respondent. It is

3 of 5

pointed out that the amount has been paid by the fourth Respondent by installments on 26th, 27th and 30th December and 3rd and 6th January, 2014. Till 19th December, 2013, the Dumper was not traceable. In the affidavit, it is not explained as to why it suddenly became traceable. It appears that only after Dumper was traced out and seized that the fourth Respondent has paid the amount. The amount appears to have been paid only after the Dumper has been seized. The objection of the learned counsel appearing for the fourth Respondent is that the main Writ Petition will lie before the Green Tribunal. However, we find that the Petition has been filed for enforcing the order under Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. The Petition was filed just to ensure that the Government gets the amount due and payable to it. Therefore, we do not accept the submission that the Petition ought to have been filed before the Green Tribunal.

¶31

Thus, the sum and substance of the case is that an amount which was due and payable to the State which ought to have been recovered long back has been belatedly recovered by the officers of the Revenue Department only in view of the proceedings filed by the Petitioners and the orders passed by this Court. Thus, in substance, the Petitioners have assisted the State to recover a large amount which is due and payable to the State. The officers of the State have shown

4 of 5

neglect and lethargy in recovering the amount which was due from February, 2011. But for the Writ Petition, the amount may not have been recovered for few more years. Therefore, the State will have to pay costs quantified at Rs.25,000/ to the Petitioners while we dispose of the Petition.

¶35

It is for the State to fix responsibility on the erring officers to recover the cost amount from them. We pass the following order :

¶36

ORDER

¶37

(i) The Writ Petition and the Civil Application do not survive as the entire amount has been recovered by the State Government. The Petition and the Application are accordingly disposed of. We direct the State of Maharashtra to pay costs quantified at Rs.25,000/ to the Petitioners within a period of eight weeks from today;

¶38

(ii) It will be open for the State to hold an enquiry for fixing responsibility on the concerned erring officers of the Revenue Department and to recover the cost amount from them;

¶39

(M.S. SONAK, J ) (A.S.OKA, J )

¶40

5 of 5

Ramkrishna v. Khot and Ors. v the Collector Sindhudurg and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramkrishna v. Khot and Ors. v the Collector Sindhudurg 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

Mahendra Mahadeodas Goswami and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ashok Dhondiram Patil and Ors. Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, Office NO.12 (R), Kolhapur and Ors.

Shri Baburao Maruti Dalavi Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Urban Development Dept and Anr.

Ratnakar Pralhad Herlekar Vs the Collector Sindhudurg and Ors.

Ratnakar Pralhad Herlekar Vs the Collector Sindhudurg and Ors.

R. M. Mohite and Co. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Industries and Mining Department and Ors.