Disposed

Dyaneshwar S/O Gulabrao Sarkate and Another v. State of Maharshtra, through Its Secretary, Dept. of Revenue, Mumbai and 5 Others

Bombay HC10 Dec 2015PIL/21/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On interim stay deposits being non-forfeitable and unexcavated industrial allotment issues, pending recovery. Collector to refund bids and state to decide village fund utilization within three months without merits considered.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; Collector to refund deposit; State to decide fund utilization in 3 months.

Dyaneshwar S/O Gulabrao Sarkate and Another Vs State of… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

pil21-15.odt

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR .

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.21 OF 2015 Dyaneshwar Gulabrao Sarkate and another

¶5

-Vrs.-

¶6

State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary Department of Revenue, Mantralaya, Mumbai and 5 others.

¶7

_______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders.

¶8

Shri P.B. Patil, counsel for petitioners. Smt. Bharti Dangre, Govt. Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to 5. Shri A.A. Naik, counsel for respondent nos. 5 & 6.

¶9

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ . DATED : 10th DECEMBER, 2015

¶10

The petitioners had approached this court basically challenging the order of the Collector dated 17.1.2015 thereby allotting sand ghat at village Devkhed Linga in favour of respondent no. 5. It is the grievance of the petitioners that though huge amounts are to be recovered from the respondent no. 6, the said amount is not recovered and the ghat in question has been allotted to respondent no. 5 as a proxy of one Shri Deshmukh against whom a huge recovery is pending. Vide interim order passed by this court, the court had stayed allotment of ghat to respondent nos. 5 & 6.

¶11

Smt. Dangre, learned Government Pleader states that in view of interim order passed by this court, the respondent nos. 5 & 6 were not permitted to excavate the sand and the period for which the bids were invited has already lapsed. She further states that on account of order passed by

¶12

¶13

pil21-15.odt

¶14

this court the respondents were also not in position to excavate sand from the ghat which is the subject matter of the petition.

¶15

The learned Government Pleader makes a specific statement that the procedure for recovery of amount of penalty from the respondent no. 6 as well as the said Shri Deshmukh is in progress.

¶16

Be that as it may, the period for which the tender was issued has come to an end. We, therefore, find that in so far as the present matter is concerned, nothing survives in the petition. The petition is disposed of.

¶17

We make it clear that we are not considering the matter on merits of the matter and all the contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶18

Needless to state that since there was no excavation of sand, the respondent Collector would consider the application of respondent nos. 5 & 6 for refund of their Earnest Money Deposit in accordance with law.

¶19

In so far as the utilization of part of the fund for development of village under the policy of the state government is concerned, the state shall take a decision in that regard, within a period of three months from today.

¶20

JUDGE JUDGE

¶21

Hirekhan

Dyaneshwar S/O Gulabrao Sarkate and Another v. State of Maharshtra, through Its Secretary, Dept. of Revenue, Mumbai and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dyaneshwar S/O Gulabrao Sarkate and Another v. State of Maharshtra, through Its Secretary, Dept. of Revenue, Mumbai and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deelip Madhukar Khisti Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kargil Nagar Rahivashi Sangh through Its President Mr. Anil v. Rote and Secretary Ganesh N. Kamble Vs Vasai Virar City Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Artist Counsil an Ass. of All Performing and Back Stage Artists Acting Thr. Its President O.P.Singh Vs Nagpur Municipal Corp. through the Commissioner, Nagpur Municipal Corp. and 2 Others

Miss. Ankita D/O Kamlesh Shah Vs State Govt. of Mah., Thr. Its Chief Secretary and 3 Others

Nanoba Mariyappa Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay Lawyers Association Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Urdu High School and Jr. College Head Master'S Welfare Association Lyavatmaltal. and Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Ramesh S/O Narayanrao Renghe, and 11 Others Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Urban Development, Dept. Mumbai and Another

Yusuf Manwar Deshmukh Vs Prakash Vallabhdas Mundhada and 3 Ors.

Kailash S/O Manohar Wankhede Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Tribal Development Deptt., Mumbai and 2 Others

Sau. Sunitabai Bhaurao Chikankar Vs Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director and 3 Others

Bhagwan Vithuji Nannaware Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Principal Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mumbai and Ot

Neeraj S/O. Omprakash Waghmare Vs the State of Maha., through Secretary General Administration, Mumbai and Others

Shri Ganesh Rajaramji Bodkhe Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Environment, Government of India, New Delhi and Ot