Partly allowed

Dattatraya Ramchandra Kadam and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Rural Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Dec 2014WP/7397/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court rejected a writ petition filed by five petitioners seeking action against encroachments. The petition involving the fourth petitioner was rejected for failure to file an affidavit renouncing hunger strikes. The remaining petition was disposed of with directions to the Collector to enquire within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected as far as 4th petitioner concerned; remaining petitioners directed to appear before District Collector on 29th December 2014; Collector directed to enquire and decide within three mo

Dattatraya Ramchandra Kadam and Ors. Vs the State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2014)

wp.7397-2014

Dond

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.7397 OF 2014

¶6

Dattatraya Ramchandra Kadam & Ors. Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶8

..Petitioners.

¶9

..Respondents.

¶10

Mr. Ajay A. Joshi for Petitioners. Mrs. Neha Bhide, AGP “B” Panel for Respondent Nos.1,2 and 4.

¶11

CORAM: A.S. OKA &

¶12

A.S. GADKARI, JJ.

¶13

DATE : 15^th December 2014.

¶14

P.C.

¶15

1 All the Petitioners except the 4^th Petitioner have filed a specific affidavit dated 7^th December 2014 by which they have made an unconditional statement that they will not take recourse to hunger strike for

¶16

fulfilling or considering their demands or grievances in relation to the

¶17

subject matter of this petition. There is an assurance given by them that

¶18

they will not adopt any unconstitutional remedy for redressal of their demands or grievances.

¶19

¶20

wp.7397-2014

¶21

2 The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners states that

¶22

the 4^th Petitioner has not come forward to file such an affidavit. Therefore, for the reasons which were recorded in order dated 1^st December 2014, this petition at the instance of the 4^th Petitioner cannot be entertained.

¶23

3 The grievance in the petition is that no action has been taken by the Collector of District Solapur on the grievance repeatedly made by the Petitioners as regards the failure to remove encroachments on a land bearing Survey No.1 at village Ropale Taluka-Pandharpur, District Solapur which is allegedly vesting in a village panchayat. The learned AGP has no instructions as regards the action taken by the Collector.

¶24

4 Hence, we dispose of this petition by passing the following

¶25

order:

¶26

(i) The Writ Petition stand rejected as far as the 4^th Petitioner is concerned;

¶27

(ii) We direct the 1^st , 2^nd , 3^rd and 5^th Petitioners or their authorised representative to remain present before the District Collector of Solapur on 29^th December 2014. The said Petitioners or their authorised representative shall produce a copy of the representation dated 14^th January 2014 (Exhibit

¶28

¶29

wp.7397-2014

¶30

“I” to the Petition) before the District Collector, Solapur along with necessary documents, if any, as well as an authenticated copy of this order;

¶31

(iii) The District Collector may himself enquire into the said application or may entrust the said application to any other officer empowered to exercise the powers under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 for removal of the encroachments;

¶32

(iv) After considering the representation and the documents produced by the Petitioners, the District Collector or the Officer so nominated by him shall hold an enquiry and shall take appropriate action in accordance with law;

¶33

(v) It is obvious that if the District Collector or Officer nominated by him finds that there are encroachments made on the Survey No.1 at village Ropale Taluka-Pandharpur, District Solapur which is allegedly a gairan land, necessary steps shall be taken for removal of the encroachments in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 or any other relevant law;

¶34

(vi) Appropriate decision shall be taken on the application dated 14^th January 2014 within a period of three months from 29^th December 2014. The decision taken shall be communicated to the Petitioners;

¶35

(vii) We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the

¶36

¶37

wp.7397-2014

¶38

merits of the allegations made by the Petitioners in their application;

¶39

(viii) Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms;

¶40

(ix) Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order.

¶41

(A.S. GADKARI, J.) (A.S. OKA, J.)

Dattatraya Ramchandra Kadam and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Rural Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dattatraya Ramchandra Kadam and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Rural Dept and Ors.

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

Mr. Sanjay Vithal Bhosale Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Siddeshwar Devastan Public Trust and Ors. Vs Prakash Kashinath Gaddur and Ors.

Mr. Sanjay Vithal Bhosale Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Bhimraj Deepchand Kothari Vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

M/S. Powar and Sons, through Prop. Shri. Rajesh Shankarrao Powar, Throough Poa, Shri. R. v. Powar Vs Ld. District Collector of Kolhapur and Ors.

Vitthal Krishna Pawar Vs Grampanchayat Uchgaon through Its Sarpanch and Ors.