Renuka Land Developers and Builders, through Parnters v. District Collector of Kolhapur and Anr.

Bombay HC22 Aug 2014WP/3516/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an impugned stay order passed by the District Collector under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The stay was arbitrary as it was based solely on a telephone objection by a State Minister without notice to petitioners, violating Article 14.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 1st July, 2013 setting aside the permission granted on 5th June, 2013 hereby set aside. Rule made absolute.

Renuka Land Developers and Builders, through Parnters Vs… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

pvr 1/3 25wp3516-14.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3516 OF 2014

¶5

Renuka Land Developers & Builders through its partners.

¶6

…Petitioners.

¶7

V/s.

¶8

1.District Collector of Kolhapur & Anr.

¶9

...Respondents.

¶10

Mr.Manoj A.Patil, for the Petitioners.

¶11

Mrs.M.P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent nos.1 and 2.

¶12

CORAM: A.S. OKA & G.S.KULKARNI, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 22, 2014 .

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

The learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGP for respondents seeks time. Considering the nature of controversy involved, the petition will have to be heard forthwith. Accordingly, we have taken up the petition for final disposal.

¶15

pvr 2/3 25wp3516-14.doc

¶16

A permission was granted to the petitioners on 5^th June,2013 by the District Collector by exercising power under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (for short “the said Code”). The substantive challenge in this petition is to the order dated 1^st July, 2013 by which the District Collector has stayed the order dated 5^th June, 2013 till further orders. Apart from the fact that the order has been passed without notice to the petitioners, it specifically records that a Hon'ble Minister of the State Government had contacted the Collector on telephone and had raised an objection to the grant of permission to the petitioners.

¶17

Thus, on plain reading of the said order, we find that the same was passed on the basis of a telephonic objection raised by a Hon'ble Minister.

¶18

The exercise of power by the Collector by staying the order dated 5^th June,2013 till further orders is on the ground that the Hon'ble Minister raised an objection to the order passed under Section 44 of the said Code. The exercise of power by the Collector is completely arbitrary which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and therefore, only on that ground, same will have to be set

¶19

pvr 3/3 25wp3516-14.doc

¶20

aside.

¶21

However, it must be made clear that we have made no adjudication on the legality of the permission dated 5^th June, 2013 granted to the petitioner. If there is any illegality associated with the said permission, the appropriate Authority of the State Government can always initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law and all the contentions in that behalf are expressly kept open.

¶22

Subject to observed above, we set aside the impugned order/communication dated 1^st July, 2013. Rule is made absolute accordingly in the above terms.

Renuka Land Developers and Builders, through Parnters v. District Collector of Kolhapur and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Renuka Land Developers and Builders, through Parnters v. District Collector of Kolhapur and Anr.

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

Pramod Ramchandra Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ashok Haridas Jagdale Vs the Collector, Solapur and Ors.

Wockhardt Hospitals Ltd. and Ors. Vs the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Gururaj Dilip Pore Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept and Anr.

Shri. Popat Ramchandra Lohar, through Power of Attorney Holder, Shri. Maruti Tukaram Chougale Vs the District Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.

Maruti Tukaram Chougale Vs the District Collector, Kolhapur and Ors.