Dismissed

Balaji Sheshrao Torane v. State of Maha and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Jan 2015WP/5157/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner challenged lifting of irrigation water from a Minor Irrigation tank by other agricultural beneficiaries, alleging theft of electricity. Petitioner sought prohibitory directions against respondents. The Court found the matter was pending before the Co-operative Department for society registration and found no interference necessary.

What did the court decide?

Rule discharged. No interference is called for.

Balaji Sheshrao Torane Vs State of Maha and Ors. — Cooperative Societies | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

WP No.5157/2003

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.5157 OF 2003.

¶5

Balaji s/o Sheshrao Torane
Age: 35 Yrs., occu. Agril.
R/o Umraj, Tq. Kandhar,
District Nanded. - PETITIONER

¶6

 VERSUS

¶7

1) The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra Minor Irrigation Department Mantralaya, Fort, Mumbai.

¶8

2) The Collector, Nanded.

¶9

3) The Tahsildar, Kandhar.

¶10

4) The Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Projects (Local), Division Nanded.

¶11

5) The Sub Divisional Engineer, Minor Irrigation Projects Sub Division, Kandhar, District Nanded.

¶12

6) The Executive Engineer The Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Nanded.

¶13

7) The Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Kandhar, Dist. Nanded.

¶14

8) Pandurang s/o Ramrao Kature, Age: 30 Yrs., occu. Agril. r/o Shriganwadi, post Nehrunagar, Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded.

¶15

9) Balaji s/o Digambar Kature Age: 26 Yrs., occu. Agril. r/o Shriganwadi, post Nehrunagar, Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded.

¶16

2 WP No.5157/2003

¶17

`10)`	`Nagnath s/o Machanna Kature`
	`Age: 55 Yrs., occ. Agril.` `r/o Shriganwadi, post Nehrunagar,` `Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded.`
`11)`	`Vithal s/o Machanna Kature,` `Age: 58 Yrs., occu. Agril.` `r/o Shriganwadi, post Nehrunagar,` `Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded.`
`12)`	`Balaji s/o Vithal Kature,` `Age: 37 Yrs., occu. Agril.` `r/o Shriganwadi, post Nehrunagar,` `Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded.`
`13)`	`Dilip s/o Vithal Kature,` `Age: 30 Yrs., occu. Agril.` `r/o Shriganwadi, post Nehrunagar,` `Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded.`
`14)`	`Bhagwat s/o Balaji Kature,` `Age: 26 Yrs., occu. Agril.` `r/o Shriganwadi, post Nehrunagar,` `Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded.`
`15)`	`Minabai w/o Sangram Kature,` `Age: 30 Yrs., occu.Household &` `Agriculture,` `r/o Shriganwadi, post Nehrunagar,` `Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded.`
`16)`	`Maroti s/o Dnyanoba Kature,` `Age: 22 Yrs., occu. Agril.` `r/o Shriganwadi, post Nehrunagar,` `Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded.`
`17)`	`Vyankati s/o Shramrao Phulwale,` `Age: 48 Yrs., occu. Agril.` `r/o Shriganwadi, post Nehrunagar,` `Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded.`
`18)`	`Thawra s/o Sakharam Chavan,` `Age: 50 Yrs., occu. Agril.` `R/o Durgatanda, post Nehrunagar,` `Tq.Kandhar, Dist. Nanded.` `- RESPONDENTS`

¶18

3 WP No.5157/2003

¶19

*****

¶20

Mr.S.S.Chaudhari, Advocate for Petitioner;
Mr.P.P.More,AGP for State.
Mr.V.D.Gunale,Advocate for Resp.Nos. 8 to 14, 17 &
18;

¶21

Mr.Avishkar S.Shelke, Adv. For Resp.No.6.

¶22

CORAM : R.M.BORDE & P.R.BORA,JJ.

¶23

DATE : 23rd January,2015.

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER:-R.M.BORDE,J.)

¶25

1)The petitioner claims that he is a
beneficiary of the project, viz. Minor Irrigation
tank constructed at Shriganwadi. The petitioner is
resident of village Umraj, Tq. Kandhar District
Nanded. The petitioner contends that the water
reservoir is constructed in the year 2002-2003 and
stored water is required to be utilized for drinking
purposes. It is the allegation of the petitioner

¶26

that Respondent Nos. 8 to 18 are committing theft of
electricity and they are lifting water from
Shriganwadi Minor Irrigation tank without securing
proper permission. The petitioner, as such, prays for
issuance of directions to Respondents 1 to 7 to take
appropriate prohibitory action against other
respondents.

¶27

2)An affidavit in reply has been presented on

¶28

4 WP No.5157/2003

¶29

behalf of State Government, controverting the

¶30

contentions raised by the petitioner in the petition.
Respondents 4 and 5 have stated in the affidavit in

¶31

reply that the Minor Irrigation tank has been
constructed in order to provide water for irrigation
purposes and the contention of the petitioner that
the water is reserved for drinking purposes is not
correct. It is informed that there is a dispute
between the groups of beneficiaries from village
Umraj and Shriganwadi in respect of utilization of
water for irrigation purposes. Both the groups have

¶32

tendered separate applications for registration of
water users' societies. As per the policy prescribed

¶33

by the State Government, application for registration
of only one society can be considered and permission
can be accorded in favour of one water users' society
to lift water for irrigation purposes. It is also
brought to our notice that the respondents are the
project affected persons, whose lands have been
acquired for construction of Minor irrigation project
and, naturally, they shall be benefited.

¶34

3)An affidavit in reply has also been

¶35

presented on behalf of Respondent Nos. 8 to 14 and 16

¶36

5 WP No.5157/2003

¶37

to 18, wherein it is contended that an application,
tendered by the concerned respondents for
registration of water users' society, is pending
consideration with the Co-operation Department. An
application tendered by one Balaji Kature, who is
chief Promoter, from amongst the group of the
petitioner, has not been considered favourably by the
Co-operation Department. As such, said Balaji Kature
is instrumental in instigating the petitioner to
approach this court. It is also not controverted by
Respondent No.6 – Electricity department that the
Respondent Nos.8 to 18 have now secured electricity
connection and as such they can be permitted to lift
the water.

¶38

4)It would be in the fitness of things to
direct the respondent concerned to consider the
application tendered by the proposed society for
registrationaswaterusers'society,as

¶39

expeditiously as possible, if the application has not
yet been dealt with and considered. Agriculturists
from the benefited zone would be entitled to lift
water for irrigation purposes in accordance with the
policy framed by the State Government in that regard.

¶40

6 WP No.5157/2003

¶41

The application for registration of Water Users'
society/association shall be dealt with by authority
competent to consider such application, either under
Maharashtra Co-Operative Societies Act or any other
enactment,governingregistrationofsuch

¶42

societies/associations.

¶43

5)For the reasons recorded herein above, no
interference is called for in the instant petition.
Rule discharged. There shall be no order as to
costs.

¶44

Sd/- Sd/-
 (P.R.BORA) (R.M.BORDE)
 JUDGEJUDGE

¶45

bdv

¶46

fldr 8.1.2015

Balaji Sheshrao Torane v. State of Maha and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balaji Sheshrao Torane v. State of Maha and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kishor Tukaram Talele Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Siddhartha Kashinath Nagrale Vs the Union of India and Others

Bahuuddeshiya Mahila Sahakari Society Ltd. Chougaon through Secretary and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Navnath Sudhakar Bhawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Manojkumar Gurunath Indure Vs Vinodkumar Gurunath Indure and Another

Manojkumar Gurunath Indure Vs Vinodkumar Gurunath Indure and Another