Dismissed

Smt. Tillottamma Balaji Sonawane and Ors. v. Additional District Collector, Nashik and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Sept 2014WP/2405/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the sale of plots by a cooperative housing society and State authorities to recover land acquisition compensation, the High Court held that disputed questions of fact regarding member enrollment and fund utilization must be decided by an alternate forum. The writ petition was disposed of without interference, and liberty was granted to explore alternate remedies.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is disposed of. Issues on merits are kept open. Liberty granted to the petitioner to resort to appropriate alternate remedy.

Smt. Tillottamma Balaji Sonawane and Ors. Vs Additional… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp2405.13.sxw

¶2

1/4

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2405 OF 2013

¶5

Smt. Tillottama Balaji Sonawane & ors.	...	Petitioners
V/s.
Additional District Collector
Nashik & ors.	...	Respondents

¶6

Ms. Smita Gaikwad for the petitioners. Mr. Vikas Mali, AGP for respondents 1 to 4 and 11 to 13. Mr. S.P. Shinde for respondent no.9 and 10 A to 10C.

¶7

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ .

¶8

10th September, 2014.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

The petitioners claim to be members of Saghmitra Co-operative Housing Society (respondent no.14 herein) registered in the year 1995. According to petitioners, 1 Hectare and 50 R land of village Agar Takli, Taluka & District Nashik was acquired by the State for housing purposes. The land owner had filed reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is submitted that the Civil Court had passed award in the said reference on 24^th February, 2000. There were 150 members registered with the society who were expecting allotment of flats/tenements/units. After getting possession of the subject land the property was divided into several plots. Eight buildings were constructed by the Society. Around 96 persons were allotted flats in the said buildings. It is the petitioner's grievance that though they were made members in the year 1995,

¶11

2/4

¶12

wp2405.13.sxw

¶13

they were denied allotment of flats. It is also alleged that some persons who were not eligible could succeed in getting allotment of flats from Society. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that State had filed First Appeal against the Award passed by the trial Court. The orders passed in the Appeal dated 4^th July, 2005 and 18^th August, 2005 are placed on record. The learned Counsel submits that the Division Bench of this Court while hearing the Appeal observed that it is the responsibility of the Government to deposit the amount of compensation as directed by the Reference Court and it is for the Government to recover the said amount from the acquiring body i.e. respondent no.14 herein.

¶14

The amount of compensation was fixed at Rs. 64,01,750/-. The learned Counsel submits that thereafter the State authorities initiated action, took steps to recover the amount and consequent thereto issued notice of sale to 6 vacant plots possessed by the Society. A copy of the notice issued by Tehsildar is at exhibit 'N' (page-99). The revenue authorities had valued these plots at Rs. 1,50,86,282/-. These plots were sold and it is the allegation of the petitioner that some of the purchasers created third party interest soon after purchasing these plots. It is necessary to mention that notice of sale of this property was issued on 30^th August, 2007.

¶15

The petitioner approached this Court now after a gap of near about more than 6 to 7 years with all these grievances raising challenge to the sale of these plots and for consequential reliefs.

¶16

The respondent-State filed affidavit-in-reply. They questioned locusstandi of petitioners to raise these issues in the present petition. The deponent submitted that petitioners are not original members of the Society and the Society

¶17

3/4 wp2405.13.sxw

¶18

never promises allotment of flats. According to deponent 110 flats have been allotted to illegal/unauthorised persons. One of the purchasers (respondents 9 and 10 herein) filed affidavit-in-reply. The respondents 9 and 10 denied these allegations made against them by the petitioners. It is their contention that they are valid purchasers. It was auction sale of the property. Their claims are settled now. Appropriate revenue entries are recorded and as such the disputed questions of fact need not be entertained now.

¶19

We have perused the entire record placed before us and considered the submissions advanced. We find that there is abnormal delay in petitioners approaching this Court raising several questions of facts which are disputed by the respondents. It was submitted that as the developer started developing these plots, the petitioner came to know about the same and after acquiring material this petition was filed. The petitioners were kept in dark throughout these years. Therefore, they were unable to approach this forum for redressal of the grievances.

¶20

The question as to whether the petitioners were enrolled as members of the Society and the persons who were allotted flats were rightly enrolled members of the society are questions of facts which are to be raised and considered, decided in alternate forums. During the course of hearing it was informed that Managing Committee of respondent no.14 Society was superseded and an Administrative Committee was appointed. It is matter of investigation of the records of the Society as to how many members were benefited who were enrolled by the Society in accordance with law.

¶21

The next question is as to whether the respondent and State authorities

¶22

4/4 wp2405.13.sxw

¶23

could sell these properties for recovering an amount of Rs. 64 lacs. The learned Counsel submitted that State collected an amount of Rs. 2 Crores and 80 lacs against recovery of Rs. 64 lacs. The learned Counsel submits that they are not aware as to what has happened to remaining amount, neither State has made any statement in respect of the said amount. All these questions are to be decided in a forum which could hear the petitioners, consider oral and documentary evidence and enter into the issues concerning disputed questions of facts. We are not inclined to interfere at this stage in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court.

¶24

Keeping all issues on merits open, we grant liberty to the petitioner to resort to appropriate alternate remedy as permissible in law. With aforesaid observations, Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶25

(B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.)

¶26

(NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

¶27

L.S. Panjwani, P.A.

Smt. Tillottamma Balaji Sonawane and Ors. v. Additional District Collector, Nashik and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Tillottamma Balaji Sonawane and Ors. v. Additional District Collector, Nashik 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

Bandopant Balaso Wadkar and Ors. Vs Shri.Bhogawati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Ors.

Shri. Dattatray Ganpati Shinde Vs the Superintending Engineer, Environmental Circle and Ors.

Shri. Parshuram Gangaram Choudhari Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Rural Development Dept and Ors.

Mr. Devanand Bhupal Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education Dept and Ors.

Baramati Taluka Sahakari Dekhrekh Sangh Maryadit, through Secretary and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Ministry of Co-Operation and Textile and Ors.

Nagsen B. Pagare Vs Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. through the General Manager