Quashed

Suresh Tukaram Solanke and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC16 Feb 2015WP/154/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court at Bombay quashed an order cancelling the regularisation of occupation of petitioners. The Court held that the cancellation was based solely on alleged oral directions from the Collector, which were denied in the record and which lacked statutory authorization under Section 19(1) of the Maharashtra Gunthewari Developments Act, 2001.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 20th November 2011 passed by the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Majalgaon was quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute.

Suresh Tukaram Solanke and Others Vs the State of… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

W.P.No.154/2014

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.154 OF 2014

¶5

Suresh s/o Tukaram Solanke, Age 32 years, Occu. Agril.,

¶6

Dilip s/o Tukaram Solanke, Age 30 years, Occu. Agril.,

¶7

Prakash s/o Sarjerao Chavan, Age 45 years, Occu.Agril.,

¶8

Ramesh s/o Sarjerao Chavan, Age 42 years, Occu.Agril.,

¶9

Sanjay s/o Babulalji Sharma, Age 42 years, Occu.Agril.,

¶10

Vinod s/o Babulalji Sharma, Age 38 years, Occu. Agril.,

¶11

Ranjeet s/o Balasaheb Gaikwad, Age 30 years, Occu. Agril.,

¶12

Dattatraya s/o Balasaheb Gaikwad, Age 28 years, Occu.Agril.,

¶13

Shaikh Manjur Shaikh Chand, Age 35 years, Occu. Agril.,

¶14

Shabana Shaikh Manjur, Age 28 years, Occu. Agril.,

¶15

Shaikh Rahim Shaikh Ahmed, Age 29 years, Occu. Agril.,

¶16

Shaikh Taufik s/o Abdul Sattar, Age 35 years, Occu. Agril., Above all R/o Majalgaon, Taluka Majalgaon, Dist. Beed .. Petitioners

Versus

W.P.No.154/2014

The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032

¶21

Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Majalgaon, District Beed

¶22

The Collector, Beed, District Beed .. Respondents

¶23

Mr N.B.Khandare, Advocate for petitioners Mr G.R.Ingole, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 Mr S.R.Choukidar, Advocate for respondent No.2

¶24

CORAM : R.M. BORDE AND N.W. SAMBRE, JJ.

¶25

DATE : 16^th February 2015

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M. Borde, J.)

¶27

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.

¶28

The petitioners are seeking quashment of the order passed by Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Majalgaon on 20^th November 2013 directing cancellation of the order of regularisation of occupation of the petitioners under the Maharashtra Gunthewari Developments (Regularisation Upgradation and Control) Act, 2001. It is recorded in the order that the Chief Officer is directed by the Collector to cancel the orders of regularisation and accordingly the Chief Officer has taken steps and issued the orders. Except the alleged direction of the Collector, there is no reason to revoke the orders of regularisation.

¶29

W.P.No.154/2014

¶30

¶31

We have asked the Counsel for Chief Officer, Municipal Council as to whether the order issued by the Chief Officer is justiciable on any other ground or that any other violation is committed by the person concerned. However, it has been categorically admitted that except for the reason of issuance of directions by the Collector, there is no other justiciable reason for issuing the order of cancellation of regularisation. The affidavit-in-reply has been presented by the District Administration Officer, Urban Development Branch, Collector Office, Beed on behalf of the Collector, wherein it has been stated that no such oral or written directions have been issued on behalf of the Collector to the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Majalgaon. It is also stated that there is no delegation of powers from the State Government under Section 19 (1) of the Maharashtra Gunthewari Developments (Regularisation, Upgradation and Control) Act, 2001, either to the Collector or any of the Officer of the State Government and as such, the reference made in the order to the oral directions issued by the Collector, is also not relevant.

¶32

In view of the affidavit tendered on behalf of the Collector, the order dated 20^th November 2011, passed by the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Majalgaon is unsustainable and the same is accordingly quashed and set aside.

¶33

W.P.No.154/2014

¶34

¶35

Rule is made absolute in above terms. There shall be no order

¶36

as to costs.

¶37

( N.W. SAMBRE, J. )

¶38

( R.M. BORDE, J. )

¶39

vvr

Suresh Tukaram Solanke and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Tukaram Solanke and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Ramlal Nandlal Jain Chhoriya Vs the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others

Manmath Maharudra Swami and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Narayan Kisan Rakh and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shaikh Nizam Babumiya Jahagirdar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Chandrakatn Ranoji Magar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kai Bhausaheb Shankarrao Patil Labade Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Society Ltd, Ahmednagar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others