High Court bench rejected a review petition against an order granting respondents time to vacate Grampanchayat land, holding there was no error apparent on the face of the record as petitioners failed to produce title or allotment documents.
Review petition stands rejected. Civil Application No. 977/2015 disposed of.
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.
16.2015 RP.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
REVIEW PETITION NO. 16/2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1183/2013
Rubab Sujat Tadvi and another
.. PETITIONERS
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and others
.. RESPONDENTS
Mr. B.S.Deshmukh, Advocate for Review Petitioners Mr. S.D.Kaldate, AGP for Respondent – State Mr. A.B.Gaikwad, Advocate for Respondent No.7
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & A.M.BADAR, JJ.
DATE: 10th February, 2015
PER COURT :-
1] Heard. This Review Petition seeks review of order dated 20th December, 2014 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.1183/2013.
2] The learned counsel appearing for the Review Petitioners submits that, the land was alloted by the Gampanchayat by way of passing a Resolution. The Petitioners are regularly paying taxes of which the Petitioners possessed receipts. It is further submitted that, when the Petition was heard, though the prayer was made
16.2015 RP.odt
2
on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 6 and 8 for adjournment to enable them to file reply, however, said prayer was not entertained. In the circumstance, the learned counsel appearing for the Review Petitioners submit that, Review Petition deserves consideration.
3] The learned counsel appearing for the Original Petitioner submits that, the Review Petitioner i.e. Original Respondent Nos. 6 and 8 in the Writ Petition have no right to reside on Grampanchayat land, therefore, this Court may not entertain the Review Petition.
4] We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the Review Petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.7, and the learned AGP for the Respondent – State, with their able assistance, perused the grounds taken in the Review Petition, annexure thereto and order under review, and we are of the opinion that, there is no any error apparent on the face of record so as to review the order dated 20th December, 2014. When the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners was confronted with the query that, whether the Review Petitioners are having any title, ownership or document, allotment letter in respect of land in question, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners fairly concedes that, there are no documents placed on record to that effect. Even the allotment letter by the Grampanchayat is also not placed on record. In absence of document for title, ownership or allotment letter by the Grampanchayat, we are not able to accept the submission of the Review Petitioners.
16.2015 RP.odt
3
5] This Court in the order under Review observed that, “we grant respondent nos. 6 & 8 time of six weeks to vacate. If they do not vacate within said time, it will be open to other respondents to proceed further with removal of encroachment in accordance with law from 1.2.2015 onwards”. Therefore, the order is clear and while removing encroachment authorities will have to proceed further with removal of encroachment in accordance with law. No case is made out. Review Petition stands rejected.
6] In view of disposal of Review Petition, Civil Application No. 977/2015 does not survive and same is disposed of.
Sd/-
[A.M.BADAR, J.]
Sd/-
[S.S. SHINDE, J.]
… DDC
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order dated 20th December 2014 in W.P. No.1183/2013 admits review for error apparent on the face of the record.
Whether the Review Petitioners have any title, ownership, or allotment letter in respect of the Grampanchayat land in question.
Rubab Sujat Tadvi and another
The State of Maharashtra and others
S.S. Shinde
A.M. Badar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
