Partly allowed

Shree Kshetra Mahabaleshwar Devsthan Trust v. P. S. Kamble, Teh Desk Officer and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Jun 2014WP/8346/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order deleting specific land from Deosthan land classification. The court set aside the impugned order due to violation of natural justice and directed the State Government to hear parties and pass a fresh order within six months, declining to adjudicate merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside for lack of hearing; direction to pass fresh order within six months; no adjudication on merits.

Shree Kshetra Mahabaleshwar Devsthan Trust Vs P. S… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2014)

wp8346

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
 WRIT PETITION NO.8346 OF 2010

¶5

Shree Kshetra Mahabaleshwar
Devasthan Trust through its
trustees...Petitioners
vs.
P.S.Kamble, The Desk Officer,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya,Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents

¶6

Mr.Siddharth Gadve i/b Mr.Vijay Killedar for the
Petitioners
Mr.V.P.Malvankar, AGP `A' Panel for the respondent
Nos.1 to 3

¶7

Ms B.P.Jakhade for respondent No.4 and applicant in
caw/1004/2013

¶8

Mr.V.A.Thorat, Senior advocate i/b Mr.V.A.Sugdare
for respondent No.5

¶9

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 A.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ.

¶10

 DATE : JUNE 10,2014

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,
the learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 3, learned
counsel for respondent No.4 and learned counsel for
respondent No.5. The challenge in this petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to
the order/communication dated 25th March 2008 issued
by the State Government. By the said order, a
direction was issued that the land bearing Survey
No.109 (old) corresponding to survey No.114/B 1+2
situated at Mahabaleshwar cannot be termed as a
Deosthan Inam ClassIII land and the said land was

¶13

wp8346

¶14

¶15

ordered to be deleted as a Deosthan land.

¶16

2There is an affidavit filed by Shri Ramakant
Asmar, Joint Secretary to Government, Revenue and
Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. In paragraph
12 of the said affidavit, it is stated that before
passing the said order, the petitioners were not
heard. Therefore, in paragraph 13, it is stated
that the State Government is ready to hear the
petitioners and ready to pass a fresh order.

¶17

3In view of what is stated in paragraphs 12 and
13 of the affidavit, the learned counsel for the
respondent No.5 states that the respondent No.5 has
no objection if a fresh order is passed after
hearing all the parties.

¶18

4The petitioner Trust has been directly affected
by the impugned order which is admittedly passed
without complying with the principles of natural
justice

¶19

5Accordingly, we dispose of the petition by
passing the following order:

¶20

(I)Impugned order dated 25th March 2008 is set
aside only on the ground that the same has been
passed without giving an opportunity of being
heard to the petitioners;

¶21

(II)We direct the State Government to give
hearing to the petitioners and all concerned
parties and to pass a fresh order as

¶22

3 wp8346

¶23

expeditiously as possible and in any event ,
within a period of six months from the date on
which an authenticated copy of this order is
produced before the State Government;

¶24

(III)We make it clear that we have made no
adjudication on merits of the controversy and
all contentions are kept open;

¶25

(IV) Petition is disposed of on above terms;

¶26

(V) Civil application No.1004 of 2013 does not

¶27

survive and the same is disposed of;

¶28

(VI) The State Government to act upon an

¶29

authenticated copy of this order.

¶30

(A.S.CHANDURKAR,J.)

Shree Kshetra Mahabaleshwar Devsthan Trust v. P. S. Kamble, Teh Desk Officer and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shree Kshetra Mahabaleshwar Devsthan Trust v. P. S. Kamble, Teh Desk Officer 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

Santosh Rangrao Gaikwad Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Minister of Petroleum and Natural Gas and Ors.

Shri Baburao Bhimrao Kasarikar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Niyojit Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Rukhi/Walmiki Magasvargiya Grahnirman Sahakari Sanstha, Kolhapur Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Revenue and Anr.

Mr. Maruti Mura Vagare Vs District Officer, Sangli and Anr.

Shri. Ganesh Dnyaneshwar Kamble Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Rajendrasingh Atmaram Yadav Vs Executive Engineer (Tmu), Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited and Ors.