This PIL sought cancellation of Development Rights Certificates issued on allegedly forged revenue records. The Court held that genuineness of records requires investigation by the competent agency, cannot be decided on bare allegations, and directed petitioners to pursue alternative remedies.
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.
203.13pil.sxw
skn 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 203 OF 2013
Mr.Bhupal Mahipati Shete and another. ... Petitioners. V/s. Kolhapur Municipal Corporation and others. ... Respondents.
Yuvraj P. Narvankar for the petitioners.
Ajay Magdum i/b. S.S.Patwardhan for respondent Nos.1,2,4 & 5.
A.S.Kulkarni for respondent No.3.
V.N.Sagare, AGP for respondent No.6.
Amit B. Borkar for respondent No.7.
I.M.Khairdi for respondent No.9.
CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND A.S. GADKARI, JJ. DATED : 28th January 2015.
P.C.
The petitioner No.1 is the sitting Corporator of respondent No.1 Kolhapur Municipal Corporation. The petitioners prays for declaration that the Development Rights Certificates (DCRs) mentioned in prayer clause (a) be cancelled and thorough inquiry be ordered in the scam of forged and altered revenue records and grant of DRCs. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there are conflicting
skn 2/5 203.13pil.sxw
revenue records (7/12 extracts) from where it can be demonstrated that before the land was returned or vest with the State, DRCs were issued by the Corporation. Under the rules, unless the title is transferred to the Corporation, DRCs cannot be issued. It is submitted that though in the reply stand is taken by the Corporation that subject lands are in possession of the corporation but in view of the conflicting revenue records or 7/12 extracts indicating different entries, the DRCs issued in favour of certain persons shall be cancelled. Learned counsel submitted that though there is no revenue loss to the Corporation but on the basis of forged revenue records benefits have been obtained by certain persons in connivance with the corporation officials. A chart at Exh.D, page182 of the paper book demonstrates area in sq.meters and the details of such lands. The learned counsel further submitted that this Court can verify 7/12 extracts placed on record for reaching conclusion that they are forged ones and direct the Corporation to cancel such DRCs. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has exhausted all alternate remedies.
a) That the disputed lands belong to respondent nos.7, 8 and 9 respectively. That there is no dispute about the title of respondent nos.7 8 and 9 over the suit property;
b) That the lands are reserved for the Development Plan of the city of Kolhapur for the purpose of burial ground/ cremation area.
203.13pil.sxw
skn 3/5
c) That the said disputed lands are open and were in possession of their respective owners. d) That respondent nos.7 to 9 have surrendered possession of the said disputed land in favour of respondent no.1.
e) That respondent nos.7 to 9 have constructed parts of compound wall as required by respondent no.1 in respect of their parts of the entire reserved property, out of which the disputed lands belonging to them are small parts.
f) That after delivery of lands to respondent no.1 and transfer of title in favour of respondent no.1, respondent nos.7 to 9 have applied for issuance of the Development Rights Certificate.
g) Such Development Rights Certificates have been issued in favour of respondent nos.7 to 9. h) Since the dispute has arisen about the grant of Development Right Certificate in favour of respondent nos.7 to 9 before this Hon'ble Court and also before the Revenue Authorities; presently the effect of the said Development Rights Certificate has been suspended by respondent no.1 Corporation.
skn 4/5 203.13pil.sxw
make out case on the basis of some conflicting documents. It is not mandatory that unless title is transferred to the Corporation, DRC cannot be issued. Learned counsel submits that this is not a public interest litigation and is liable to be dismissed.
skn 5/5 203.13pil.sxw
have not approached the agency entrusted with the investigation. In absence of proper investigation, on the bare allegations made by the petitioner, it would be difficult to arrive at definite conclusion as to whether 7/12 extracts were forged or not. The petitioners are at liberty to resort to such remedy, if the petitioner has not exhausted the same. In future if it is found that fraud was played, then other options are open to the petitioners to resort to in accordance with law. We are not giving clean chit to any of the Corporation officials who have dealt with the files, made notings, and issued DRCs.
7. With the aforesaid observation, petition is disposed of.
(A.S. GADKARI, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)
Sanjay Nanoskar, P.S..
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Development Rights Certificates issued on allegedly forged revenue records can be cancelled in a PIL without prior investigation.
Whether the petitioners have exhausted alternate remedies before approaching this Court.
Whether allegations of fraud against Corporation officials warrant an interim disposal of the underlying certificates.
Mr. Bhupal Mahipati Shete and another
Kolhapur Municipal Corporation
Respondent Nos. 7 to 9
NARESH H. PATIL
A.S. GADKARI
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
