Allowed

Haridas Amruta Tayde v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC11 Apr 2014WP/2032/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought directions to regularize his possession of government land claimed since 1960-61. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Jagpal Singh regarding eviction of illegal occupants and the need for regularization only in exceptional cases. It directed the Collector to make a hearing-enabled decision within six months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Collector to hear the petitioner and decide on regularization of possession within six months.

Haridas Amruta Tayde Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp2032.14

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2032 OF 2014

¶5

Haridas s/o Amruta Tayde .. PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr. A. D. Aghav, advocate for petitioner. Mr. M. M. Nerlikar, AGP for the State.

¶9

=====

¶10

CORAM : R.M. BORDE & A. M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 11th APRIL, 2014.

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

petitioner is praying for issuance of directions to the respondents

¶13

to regularize his possession over the property in dispute. According to petitioner, he is in possession of the Government land since 1960-1961 and

¶14

as such in accordance with the policy prescribed by the Government on

¶15

28.11.1991 as well as the Government Resolution dated 12.07.2011, his

¶16

occupation over the property needs to be regularized.

¶17

Learned AGP for the State has invited our attention to the decision

¶18

rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Jagpal Singh & others V/s

¶19

State of Punjab & others in Civil Appeal No. 1132/2011 @ SLP (C) No.

¶20

wp2032.14

¶21

¶22

3109/2011 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) CC No. 19869 of

¶23

2010 ) wherein the Supreme Court has observed in paragraph no. 2 of the

¶24

judgment as below :-

¶25

“Before parting with this case we give directions to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal / unauthorized occupants of Gram Sabha / Gram Panchayat / Paramboke / Shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha / Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. For this purpose the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments / Union Territories in India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of the Governments. the said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after giving him a show cause notice and a brief hearing. Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularizing the illegal possession. Regularization should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been granted under some Government notification to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land.”

¶26

The Government has also formulated a policy in observance of the

¶27

decision of the Supreme Court on 12.07.2011 and has issued fresh guidelines in respect of regularization of encroachment over the Government land. A decision taken by the State Government reflected from

¶28

wp2032.14

¶29

¶30

the resolution issued on 28.11.1991 has been reiterated. The petitioner contends that since he is in possession over the property since 1960-1961, his possession needs to be regularized. The petitioner also contends that he has not been heard by the authority before forming an opinion that his possession does not deserve to be regularized.

¶31

In the facts and circumstances of this case, the petition can be disposed of by issuing directions to the respondent no. 2 to take decision in respect of regularization of possession / encroachment of the petitioner over the Government land in accordance with the resolutions issued by the State Government as well as mandate of the Supreme Court in the matter of Jagpal Singh & others V/s State of Punjab & others (supra). The Collector, after extending an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, shall take appropriate decision in the matter as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from today. It is directed accordingly.

¶32

With the directions as above, writ petition stands disposed of.

¶33

( A. M. BADAR ) ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE JUDGE dyb

Haridas Amruta Tayde v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haridas Amruta Tayde v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Paldewar Prashant Agrotech Pvt.Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/S S.R.J.Peety Steels Jalna Pvt. Ltd.

Aurangabad Electrical Contractors Association and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kisan Tatyaba Gunjkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dr. Dilip Deoram Chaudhari and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dayanand Subhashrao Chavan and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others