Disposed

M/S. Powar and Sons, through Prop. Shri. Rajesh Shankarrao Powar, Throough Poa, Shri. R. v. Powar v Ld. District Collector of Kolhapur and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Dec 2014WP/2012/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought implementation of a 2012 order restoring mined land possession. The court granted four months to the State Government to recall or modify the order pending a fresh enquiry. If not done, the Collector must implement the order. The court did not adjudicate the order's validity.

What did the court decide?

The State Government is granted four months to take appropriate steps; if no recall or modification occurs, the District Collector must restore possession to the petitioner.

M/S. Powar and Sons, through Prop. Shri. Rajesh… — Mining and Natural Resources | Bombay HC (2014)

WP.2012-2014

Dond

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2012 OF 2014

M/s Powar & Sons

..Petitioners.

Vs.

Ld. District Collector of Kolhapur & Ors.

¶10

..Respondents.

¶11

Mr. Manoj Patil for Petitioner. Mrs. M.P. Thakur,AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶12

CORAM: A.S. OKA &

¶13

A.S. GADKARI, JJ. DATE : 15^th December 2014.

¶14

P.C.

¶15

1 By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

¶16

the Petitioner is seeking implementation of the order dated 19^th October 2012 passed by the State Government.

¶17

2 By the said order dated 19^th October 2012 passed in the Revision Application, the State Government directed the restoration of the

¶18

possession of land granted to the Petitioner for the purposes of mining. Further direction was issued to the District Mining Officer to hold a fresh enquiry and thereafter, pass appropriate order.

¶19

¶20

WP.2012-2014

¶21

3 The State Government has filed an affidavit of Shri Abhay Suresh Bhoge, the District Mining Officer. In the said affidavit, a reliance has been placed on the report/communication dated 20^th August 2014 forwarded by the Additional Collector of Kolhapur to the Deputy Secretary of the Revenue and Forest Department of the State Government. In the said report/communication, a reference has been made to the Government Resolution dated 12^th July 2011 issued by the State Government on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court dated 28^th January 2011 in Civil Appeal No.1132 of 2011 (Jaspal Singh and ors. Vs. The State of Punjab). The guidance of the State Government is sought as to whether in the light of the Government Resolution dated 12^th July 2011, the possession of the land in question can be restored to the Petitioner. By order dated 30^th October 2014, this Court directed the Revenue and Forest Department to take appropriate decision on the basis of the report/communication dated 20^th August 2014. A direction was issued to the Revenue and Forest Department to take appropriate decision on or before 10^th December 2014. The learned AGP has not received any instructions as regards any decision taken by the Revenue and Forest Department.

¶22

4 As of today, the order dated 19^th October 2012 continues to operate. If the State Government or any other Authorities are of the view

¶23

¶24

WP.2012-2014

¶25

that the said order cannot be implemented in the light of the Government Resolution dated 12^th July 2011 which is based on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jaspal Singh, appropriate proceedings will have to be initiated for recalling of the said order and/or modification of the said order. So long as the order dated 19^th October 2012 continues to operate, no Authorities of the State Government can decline to implement of the same. We, therefore, propose to grant a reasonable time to the concerned Authorities to take out proceedings for recall of the said order dated 19^th October 2012. We, however, make it clear that this Court has not suggested that the proceedings for recall of the order deserve to be initiated. If the order dated 19^th October 2012 is neither recalled nor modified, the same will have to be implemented. We propose to grant time of four months to the State Government to take appropriate steps.

¶26

5 Accordingly, we dispose of this petition by passing the following order:

¶27

(i) We grant time of four months to the State Government to take appropriate steps;

¶28

(ii) If the said order is neither recalled nor modified within a period of four months from today, the District Collector shall forthwith take steps to implement the order dated 19^th October 2012 by placing the Petitioner in

¶29

¶30

WP.2012-2014

¶31

possession of the land subject matter of the order dated 19^th October 2012;

¶32

(iii) We make it clear that in the event any proceedings are initiated for recall or modification of the order dated 19^th October 2012, notice thereof shall be served to the Petitioner and he shall be given an opportunity of being heard;

¶33

(iv) We make it clear that we have made no adjudication as regards the legality and validity of the order dated 19^th October 2012;

¶34

(v) Subject to above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of;

¶35

(vi) All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order;

¶36

(vii) We direct the Petitioner to serve the authenticated copy of this order to the Secretary of the relevant Department of the State.

¶37

(A.S. GADKARI, J.) (A.S. OKA, J.)

M/S. Powar and Sons, through Prop. Shri. Rajesh Shankarrao Powar, Throough Poa, Shri. R. v. Powar v Ld. District Collector of Kolhapur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Powar and Sons, through Prop. Shri. Rajesh Shankarrao Powar, Throough Poa, Shri. R. v. Powar v Ld. District Collector of Kolhapur 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Sanjay Vithal Bhosale Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Siddeshwar Devastan Public Trust and Ors. Vs Prakash Kashinath Gaddur and Ors.

Mr. Sanjay Vithal Bhosale Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Bhimraj Deepchand Kothari Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Dattatraya Ramchandra Kadam and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Rural Dept and Ors.

Vitthal Krishna Pawar Vs Grampanchayat Uchgaon through Its Sarpanch and Ors.