In a writ petition concerning the allotment of encroached land by MIDC in Aurangabad, the High Court directed the Corporation to complete its reconsideration process within three months without deciding merits of rival claims.
Directed the M.I.D.C. to complete the process of consideration of land allotment claims within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
G.A.Ghule [P.A.]
1/5 wp 510.12 & 3307.14. with ca 2577.12.10492.13.12483.09.9122.11.9123.11.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
WRIT PETITION NO. 510 OF 2012.
With
Civil Application No.2577/2012.
With
Civil Application No.10492/2013.
With
Writ Petition No.3307/2014
With Civil Application No.12483/2009
With
Civil Application No.9122/2011. With Civil Application No.9123/2011.
W.P.No. 510/2012.
M/S ANIL ENGINEERING Through It's Partner Anil Nagorao Deshpande :: Petitioner. V e r s u s The State of Maharashtra & Ors. :: Respondents. W.P.No.3307/2014. Santosh Ramlal Thole :: Petitioner. V e r s u s The State of Maharashtra & Ors. :: Respondents. Appearance =>
Mr. Sudheer R. Barlinge, Advocate for the Petitioner in W.P. No.510/12.
Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for the State of Maharashtra.
2/5 wp 510.12 & 3307.14. with ca 2577.12.10492.13.12483.09.9122.11.9123.11.sxw
Mr. Sanjaykumar Bhosale, Advocate for Resp.Nos. 2 and 3.
Mr. Girish Rane, Advocate for the Petitioner in W.P. No.3307/14.
Mr. P.S. Dighe, Advocate h/for Mr. R.L. Kute, Advocate for the Petitioners in Writ Petition No.6180 Of 2008.
CORAM : B.P. Dharmadhikari & A.M. Badar, JJ. DATE : 8th December, 2014.
Per Court :-
Heard respective counsel. Record of Writ Petition No.6180 Of 2008 [Chandrabhan s/o Barku Hiwale & Ors. Versus The State of Maha. & Ors.] is also made available. As stand of M.I.D.C. to reconsider the controversy appears just, we record the reasons briefly.
[2] Facts shows that this court has disposed of Civil Application No. 6318 Of 2010 in Writ Petition No.6180/2008 with directions to Resp. Nos. 6 and 7 therein i.e. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation to consider the proposal of the Applicant therein i.e. present petitioner for regularization of his encroachment, without being influenced by pending Writ Petition No.6180/2008.
[3] Said applicant – M/s. Anil Engineering has filed present Writ Petition No.510/12 seeking the final allotment order in respect of Plot admeasuring 1111 Sq.Mtrs. from Gat No.69 situated at MIDC, Walunj, Aurangabad by removing encroachment thereon within three months.
[4] The petitioner in Writ Petition 3307 Of 2014 - Santosh Ramlal Thole has field Civil Application No.2577 Of 2012 (Intervention Application) in Writ Petition No.510/12. He claims to be in possession of
3/5 wp 510.12 & 3307.14. with ca 2577.12.10492.13.12483.09.9122.11.9123.11.sxw
about 378 Sq.Mtrs portion out of 1111 Sq.Mtrs portion of of land, out of Gat No.69. In substance, he is seeking direction to allot that portion also to himself. Petitioner in W.P.No.510/2012 is Resp.No.4 in W.P.No.3307/2014.
[5] Mr. Sudheer Barlinge, learned counsel has argued for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.510 Of 2012. Mr. Girish Rane, appears for Petitioner - Santosh Thole in Writ Petition No.3307 Of 2014; as also Applicant in Civil Application No.2577 Of 2012. Mr. P.S. Dighe, learned counsel h/for Mr. R.L. Kute, Advocate is appearing for original land owners i.e. Chandrabhan Barku Hiwale & Ors. - the petitioners in Writ Petition 6180 Of 2008, who filed Civil Application No.10492/13 (Intervention Application) in this matter. Mr. Sanjaykumar Bhosale, learned counsel argued for M.I.D.C..
[6] After hearing respective counsel, we find that directions of this Court dated 13th October, 2010 given in Civil Application No.6318 Of 2010 in Writ Petition No.6180/2008 were acted upon by the M.I.D.C.. The M.I.D.C. on 19th May, 2011 agreed to offer said portion of land to the petitioner – M/s. Anil Engineering, through its Partner – Anil Nagorao Deshpande subject to removal of encroachment, before issuance of the allotment order of said land.
[7] The petitioner / Applicant Santosh Thole after pointing out the pendency of his prayer for intervention and suitable relief in Writ Petition No.3307/2014 prays to quash and set aside the decision dated 12/07/10 taken in the meeting of L.A.C. of Resp.No.2 to the extent of Resp.No.4 M/s. Anil Engineering and the communication dated 19/05/11 issued in favour of said Resp.No.4. It is his case that he has been placed into possession of about 378 Sq.Mtrs portion.
4/5 wp 510.12 & 3307.14. with ca 2577.12.10492.13.12483.09.9122.11.9123.11.sxw
[8] Mr. P.S. Dighe, learned counsel has submitted that in the process, as the land has not been acquired and original owners namely Chandrabhan Hiwale and others have not received any compensation, their interest cannot be prejudiced or adversely affected.
[9] Mr. Sanjaykumar Bhosale, learned counsel however stated that as the petitioner - M/s. Anil Engineering, at the relevant time obtained certain orders from Defence Department, this court was inclined to direct M.I.D.C. to consider his entitlement. He submits that the said petitioner is not in possession of entire 1111 Sq Mtrs. out of land Gat No.69 and part of it is encroached upon by Santosh Ramlal Thole. He submits that, that part is leased out to Santosh by M/s. Anil Engineering.
[10] It is not necessary for this court to go into these disputed questions.
[11] Mr. Bhosale has stated that though communication dated 19th May, 2011 was issued, after getting knowledge of all facts, the M.I.D.C. has re-considered the position. Prima facie, it is seen that the petitioner M/s. Anil Engineering may be in possession of part of land Gat No.69 while some part thereafter may be in possession of other petitioner – Santosh Ramlal Thole.
[12] Land belongs to instrumentality of the State and, therefore, can be allotted only after following the policy or then by adhering to the requirement of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If the persons, who are claiming allotment have already entered upon it, one can take due cognizance thereof while considering their entitlement.
5/5 wp 510.12 & 3307.14. with ca 2577.12.10492.13.12483.09.9122.11.9123.11.sxw
[13] As the M.I.D.C. has stated that, it is re-considering the issue in the light of the facts, which have come on record, without observing anything on merits, we direct the M.I.D.C. to complete the process of consideration within three months from today.
[14] With these directions and keeping all rival contentions open, we dispose of the Writ Petition Nos. 510 Of 2012 and 3307 Of 2014.
(A.M. BADAR, J.) (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation must reconsider its decision regarding allotment of encroached land when original owners have not received compensation.
Whether allotment of land can proceed pending resolution of disputes regarding encroachment and possession claims.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chandrabhan s/o Barku Hiwale & Ors. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors.Referred¶25
Writ Petition No.6180 Of 2008 [Chandrabhan s/o Barku Hiwale & Ors. Versus The State of Maha. & Ors.]
M/s Anil Engineering
Santosh Ramlal Thole
The State of Maharashtra
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation
B.P. Dharmadhikari
A.M. Badar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
