Dismissed

Bharat Prabhakarrao Sabade and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC22 Jan 2015WP/629/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the notification to set Nanded as headquarters and sought direction to invite claims for Latur. The court held the notification complied with statutory procedure regarding publication and objections. It ruled that the bifurcation decision is a non-justiciable administrative function requiring a proper hearing under the Revenue Code, and dismissed the petition allowing object

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed. The petitioners were directed to raise objections before the State Government as per the provisions of the Code.

Bharat Prabhakarrao Sabade and Others Vs the… — Municipal and Town Planning | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

WP No.629/2015

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.629 OF 2015

¶5

1) Bharat s/o Prabhakarrao Sabade and another - PETITIONERS

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1)The State of Maharashtra and
others - RESPONDENTS

¶8

*****

¶9

Mr.V.D.Hon, Senior Counsel, i/by Mr. Ashwin V.Hon,
Advocate for Petitioner/s

¶10

Mr.S.K.Kadam, AGP for Respondents.

¶11

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

¶12

DATE :22nd January,2015.

¶13

PER COURT:

¶14

1)The petitioners are praying for issuance

¶15

of writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the

¶16

Schedule annexed to the Notification dated 2nd of

¶17

January, 2015 published by the Government,
pronouncing the intention to set up revenue
divisional headquarter at Nanded. The

¶18

petitioners also pray for issuance of a writ of
mandamus, directing the respondent/authorities of

¶19

2 WP No.629/2015

¶20

the State Government to modify the Schedule to
the Notification dated 2nd January, 2015, inviting
claims and objections for setting up headquarter
of the bifurcated revenue division by including
Latur as headquarter of the bifurcated revenue
division. The petitioners, in short, support
setting up of revenue headquarter of bifurcated
revenue division of Aurangabad region at Latur.

¶21

2)On earlier occasion also, one Shri
R.D.Deshmukh had presented a writ petition,
bearing Writ Petition No.6025/2006 in this Court
seeking a directions to the State Government to
prescribe Parbhani as headquarter of new revenue
division of the bifurcated revenue division of
Aurangabad. The writ petition came to be
dismissed by this court by order dated
10.11.2006.

¶22

3)Another group of petitions came up for
consideration before this court being Writ
Petition No. 149 of 2009 and other companion
matters, questioning decision taken in the

¶23

3 WP No.629/2015

¶24

cabinet meeting by the State Government on
5.1.2009 to bifurcate Aurangabad Revenue division

¶25

and to create a separate revenue division for
Nanded, Latur, Parbhani and Hingoli districts
having its headquarter at Nanded. During the
course of hearing of aforesaid group of

¶26

petitions, Advocate General caused appearance on
behalf of the State on 15.1.2009 and made a
statement that the procedure prescribed in law
would be followed. The Division bench of this
Court has observed in para 6 of the judgment, as
under, -

¶27

“6.We have perused the provisions
of Section 4 of the 1966 Code.
Section4dealswiththe
constitution of Revenue areas. Sub-
Section (4) thereof stipulates that
every notification or order made
under Section 4 is subject to
condition of previous publication
and for that purpose Section 24 of
1904 Act has been made applicable.

¶28

The power has been given to State
Government. Clause (d) of Section 24
of 1904 Act requires the authority

¶29

4 WP No.629/2015

¶30

having power to create such Revenue
Division, to consider any objection
or suggestion, which may be received
by it from any person, after the
publication of such notification or

¶31

proposal. It is, therefore,
apparentthatthisstatutory
procedure cannot be done away and
even if any One Man Committee is
appointed or it's report is accepted
that acceptance cannot defeat the
requirements of Section 4(4) of 1966
Code.”

¶32

4)The Division Bench has further observed

¶33

that the impugned decision taken in the Cabinet
meeting dated 5.1.2009 does not by itself violate
provisions of Section 4(4) of Maharashtra Land
Revenue code, 1966. However, its implementation
appears to be faulty. The Division Bench, as

¶34

such, granted liberty to the State Government to
proceed further in the matter, in accordance with
provisions of Section 4(4) of 1966 Code. The
Court expected respondents to take appropriate
steps within a period of three months from the

¶35

WP No.629/2015

¶36

¶37

date of order, i.e. September 23, 2013.

¶38

5)The State Government, it appears, in

¶39

furtherance of the Cabinet decision taken
earlier, proceeded to issue notification, as
contemplated by Section 4 of the code of 1966.

¶40

The petitioners submit that the action taken by

¶41

the State Government is tainted with malafide
and that the directives issued by the Division
Bench by order dated 23rd September, 2013, have

¶42

not been adhered. It is also contended that the
decision appears to be pre-determined, since it

¶43

is declared that 23rd February, 2015 would be the
date on which separate revenue division will come
into existence. The petitioners apprehend that
the claims and objections raised by the
petitioners and others would not be considered by
the State Government since there is no date
prescribedunderthenotificationfor

¶44

consideration of the claims and objections to the
preliminary notification issued on 2nd January,
2015.

¶45

6 WP No.629/2015

¶46

6)Section 4 of the Maharashtra Land

¶47

Revenue Code, 1966 authorizes the State
Government, by notification in the official

¶48

gazette, to specify, the districts (including the
City of Bombay) which constitute a division.

¶49

Sub-section (4) of Section 4 provides that every
notification or order made under this section

¶50

shall be subject to the condition of previous
publication; and the provisions of section 24 of
the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, shall, so

¶51

far as may be, apply in relation to such
notification or order, as they apply in relation
to rules to be made after previous publication.

¶52

7)Section 24 of the Bombay General Clauses
Act, 1904 provides, where by any Bombay Act (or
Maharashtra Act) a power to make Rules or by-laws
is expressed to be given subject to the
conditions of the Rules or by-laws being made
after previous publication, then, the following
provisions shall apply, namely :-

¶53

(a) the authority having power to make the
rules or by-laws shall, before making them,
publish a draft of the proposed rules or by-laws

¶54

7 WP No.629/2015

¶55

for the information of persons likely to be
affected thereby;

¶56

(b)the publication shall be made in such
manner as that authority deems to be sufficient
or, if the condition with respect to previous
publication so requires, in such manner as the
(Central Government, or as the case may be, the
(State) Government) prescribes;

¶57

(c)there shall be published with the draft
a notice specifying a date on or after which the
draft will be taken into consideration;

¶58

(d)the authority having power to make the
rules or by-laws, and where, the rules or by-laws
are to be made with the sanction, approval or
concurrence of another authority, that authority
also, shall consider any objection or suggestion
which may be received by the authority having
power to make the rules or by-laws from any
person with respect to the draft before the date
so specified;

¶59

(e)the publication in the Official gazette
of a rule or by-law purporting to have been made
in exercise of a power to make rules or by-laws
after previous publication shall be conclusive
proof that the rule or by-law has been duly made.

¶60

8 WP No.629/2015

¶61

8)In the instant matter, it does appear

¶62

that the State Government has notified 2nd

¶63

February, 2015 as a date for receiving claims and
objections to the preliminary notification
published on 2.1.2015. It is further provided
that the claims and objections received within
thetimelimit,prescribedunderthe

¶64

notification, would be considered before taking
any decision. It thus appears that the

¶65

preliminary notification is in conformity with

¶66

the provisions of Section 24 of the Maharashtra
General Clauses Act. Therefore, the apprehension
expressed by the petitioners that the claims and

¶67

objections those would be raised by the
petitioners and others would not be considered by
the State Government, is without any basis or
substance.

¶68

9)The bifurcation of existing revenue

¶69

division and prescription of a headquarter for

¶70

the newly created revenue division, is purely an
administrative function to be performed by the

¶71

9 WP No.629/2015

¶72

State Government in adherence to the provisions
of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. At
this stage, the challenge to the proposed
administrative decision of the State, does not
deserve consideration. The writ petition is
devoid of substance and stands dismissed.

¶73

10)It would be open for the petitioners to
raise appropriate objections before the State
Government and it would be open for State
Government to consider such objections in
accordance with provisions of Code of 1966 and to
take appropriate final decision. The State
Government, while taking decision, shall not
influence by any of the observations made by this
court in the instant petition.

¶74

 (P.R.BORA) (R.M.BORDE)
 JUDGEJUDGE

¶75

bdv/

Bharat Prabhakarrao Sabade and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Prabhakarrao Sabade and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sachin Narsingrao Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shamsundar Tukaramji Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kachru Tanhaji Dhayje and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Radhesham @ Sham Jagannath Soman Vs State of Maha

Rupesh Ghanshyam Patil Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation, Mumbai and Others

Shilabai Raghuraj Hare Vs the State of Mah and Ors.