Partly allowed

Shri Baburao K.Arekar and Anr. v. Grampanchayat Dandi and Others

Bombay HC10 Sept 2014WP/3515/1988

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding a dispute over house ownership and jurisdiction between two village panchayats, the High Court relieved the State and Tahasildar respondents of immediate liability to demolish or reconstruct houses pending boundary demarcation, directing them to complete the survey within four months under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.

What did the court decide?

Partly made absolute: Rule issued directing Third and Fourth Respondents to demarcate village boundaries within four months under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, with final relief on house reconstr

Shri Baburao K.Arekar and Anr. Vs Grampanchayat… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

pvr 1/5 201wp3515-88.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3515 OF 1988

¶5

1.Baburao Kashinath Arekar & Anr. ...Petitioners. V/s. 1.Grampanchayat, Dandi & Ors. ...Respondents.

¶6

Mr.K.N.Kore, for the Petitioners.

¶7

Mr.A.S.Khandeparkar with Mr.Shantanu Chandratri i/b. Khandeparkar & Associates, for Respondent no.1.

¶8

Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP for Respondent nos.3 and 4.

¶9

CORAM: A.S. OKA & G.S.KULKARNI, JJ. DATED : 10^th SEPTEMBER, 2014. ---

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT : ( Per A.S.OKA, J. )

¶11

After the petition is called out, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners states that the second petitioner is no more. However, the first petitioner is the husband of second petitioner and the estate is represented. The learned Counsel for the first respondent seeks time.

¶12

The controversy involved in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited. The first respondent is the village panchayat of Dandi and the second respondent is the village panchayat of Uchcheli. It appears from the averments made in the petition that there appears to be some kind of a

¶13

5/5

¶14

pvr 2/5 201wp3515-88.doc

¶15

rivalry between the villagers staying in these two villages. The dispute is about House nos.178 and 179. The case made out by the petitioners is that they are the owners of the said two houses alongwith a stable which are situated within the limits of second respondent - village panchayat and they have been paying taxes in respect of the same. It is contended that the first respondent – village panchayat erroneously claimed that the houses and cattle sheds were situated within its local limits and therefore, notices were issued to the petitioners alleging that these structures were illegal. It is alleged in the petition that the first respondent and the villagers of the first respondent by taking law in their own hands took illegal action of demolition of the said houses.

¶16

The first prayer in the petition is for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to demarcate the boundary between the jurisdiction of two adjacent village panchayats. The second prayer is for directing restoration or reconstruction of the said houses by the first respondent.

¶17

This petition was listed for admission on 18^th July,1988. While issuing rule, this Court directed the third and fourth respondents (Tahasildar, Palghar and State of Maharashtra) to demarcate the boundaries of the villages within three months from the said date and to submit a report to this Court. There is nothing placed on record to show that the said order was implemented by the third and fourth respondents.

¶18

The issue raised in this petition can be resolved only by demarcation of the boundary between the first and second respondents. As the fifth respondent – Village panchayat Unbhat is also an adjacent village panchayat, in the prayer clause (a) , a prayer is made for fixing the boundary of even the said village Unbhat.

¶19

The real issue is 'whether the said houses are situated within the jurisdiction of the first respondent village panchayat.' There is a reply filed by the Sarpanch of the first respondent village panchayat, in which it is reiterated that the

¶20

5/5

¶21

pvr 3/5 201wp3515-88.doc

¶22

said houses were constructed by the petitioner by making encroachment. The contention is that the said houses are situated within the limits of the first respondent village panchayat and the second respondent village panchayat was unauthorisedly collecting the taxes from the petitioners in relation to the said houses.

¶23

The second and the only other substantive prayer is for ordering reconstruction of the said houses. The question of considering the said prayer will arise provided after demarcation it is established that the house Nos.178 and 179 were situated within the limits of second respondent village panchayat and not within the limits of the first respondent village panchayat.

¶24

As nothing is placed on record regarding compliance of the interim order, a direction will have to be issued to the third and fourth respondents to comply with the said order which is passed in terms of prayer clause (a), the first substantive relief sought in the petition. If after demarcation it is found that house Nos.178 and 179 were not situated within the limits of the first respondent village panchayat, the petitioner will have to apply to the first respondent village panchayat for reconstruction of the said houses.

¶25

Hence, we dispose of the petition by passing the following order:-

¶26

ORDER

¶27

(i) A writ be issued in terms of interim order dated 18^th July,1988 which reads thus:-

¶28

“The Respondents 3 and 4 shall demarcate the boundaries of the village within three months from today and submit the report to this Court.”

¶29

(ii) If the above interim order is already complied with, the third

¶30

5/5

¶31

pvr 4/5 201wp3515-88.doc

¶32

respondent shall provide to the first petitioner a demarcation plan showing boundaries of three concerned villages. The demarcation plans be supplied to the first petitioner within a period of one week from the date on which the authenticated copy of the order is served on the first respondent;

¶33

(iii) If the compliance of the order dated 18^th July,1988 is not made till today, we direct the third and fourth respondents to comply with the said order within a period of four months from today. It will be open for the third and fourth respondents to take assistance of Survey Officers under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. In such event, the map prepared on demarcation shall be supplied to the first petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date on which the map is ready;

¶34

(iv) If it is found on the basis of the demarcation map that both the houses or parts thereof were not situated within the limits of the first respondent village panchayat, it will be open for the petitioner to make representation to the first respondent village panchayat for seeking reconstruction of the said houses or parts thereof, as the case may be, at the cost of the first respondent. If such representation is made, the first respondent shall take appropriate decision thereon within a period of two months from the date on which the representation is made by the first petitioner;

¶35

(v) If the decision be adverse to the first petitioner, his remedy of challenging the said decision is kept open;

¶36

(vi) We make it clear that this Court has made no adjudication on the disputed question of the boundaries between the concerned villages;

¶37

5/5

¶38

pvr 5/5 201wp3515-88.doc

¶39

(viii) Rule is partly made absolute in the above terms with no order as

¶40

to costs.

¶41

The third and fourth respondents to act upon the authenticated copy of this order.

¶42

5/5

Shri Baburao K.Arekar and Anr. v. Grampanchayat Dandi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Baburao K.Arekar and Anr. v. Grampanchayat Dandi and Others

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

Shri. Ramesh Kuber Savalwade Vs Sub-Divisional Officer, Walwa Division, Islampur and Ors.

Mrs. Sucheta Sharad Patil Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Shree Pandurang Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs the Sugar Commissioner, Maharashtra State and Anr.

Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors. Vs Babu Maruti Dukare and Ors.

Siddhivinayak Data Entry and Processing Unit, through Shri. Santosh Sudam Nimbalkar Vs the Collector, Solapur and Ors.

Altaf Salim Shikalgar Vs Raju Laxman Gavali and Ors.