Pandurang Vitthal Kumbhar and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

wp2355

1

ssp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2355 OF 2015

¶5

Pandurang Vitthal Kumbhar
and others
vs.

¶6

...Petitioners

¶7

State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶8

Mr.K.V.Patil for the Petitioners

¶9

Mr.A.I.Patel, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 5.

¶10

CORAM : A.S.OKA, &
 C.V.BHADANG, JJ.
 DATE : JANUARY 11, 2016

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the learned AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 5.
Notice for final disposal was issued on 8th April
2015. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said order read
thus:

¶13

“2We have perused the order dated 12th
March 2015. In view of the statement of the
learned AGP recorded in the said order, we
make it clear that it will be open for the
respondents to offer suitable plots to the
petitioners. It will be open for the
petitioners to consider the said offer
without prejudice to their rights and
contentions in this Writ Petition.

¶14

3We make it clear that unless respondents

¶15

2 wp2355

¶16

come forward to allot suitable plots to the
petitioners within a reasonable time, prayer
clause (a) will have to be considered on
merits.”

¶17

2The order dated 26th November 2015 records that
the respondent No.6 is not a necessary party.

¶18

3The petitioners who are claiming to be the
project affected persons of the Wang Marathwadi
Project applied for allotment of plots for their
rehabilitation. Under the order dated 28th April
2014 the Sub Divisional Officer, Karad, (fourth
respondent) allotted certain plots to the
petitioners. The case made out in the petition on
the basis of the mutation entries is that they were
placed in possession of the allotted plots. The
challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is to the order dated 12th June
2014 by which the allotment of the plots earlier
made to the petitioners has been set aside on the
ground that the said plots are likely to be affected
by widening of KaradMalkapurDhebewadi Road. This
order was made by the Sub Divisional Officer, Karad.
It appears tht this order was passed on the basis of
the letter dated 12th June 2014 issued by the
Assistant Executive ClassI, Special Project, Sub
Division, Karad of the Public Works Department. It
is urged that the order of cancellation of allotment
was passed without giving an opportunity of being
heard to the petitioners.

¶19

3 wp2355

¶20

4There is a reply filed by Shri Kishor Pawar,
the Sub Divisional Officer, District Satara. In the
said affidavit, the contention regarding breach of
principles of natural justice is not dealt with. It
is contended in the reply that out of 11 project
affected persons whose allotment was cancelled under
the impugned order, 6 project affected persons have
accepted the alternate plots offered to them and
only the present petitioners have not accepted the
same. It is contended that on 29th December 2014 in
the meeting attended by the petitioners in presence
of the District Collector, the present petitioners
declined to accept the alternate plots. Therefore,
it is contended in the reply that no interference
should be made in writ jurisdiction. It is also
pointed out in the reply that even the Hon'ble
Minister of the Resettlement Department had directed
the Authorities to maintain status quo.

¶21

5The submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the entire area of the plots
allotted to the petitioners is not required for the
road widening and the impugned order is based on an
incorrect interpretation of the letter dated 4th June
2014 addressed to the Sub Divisional Officer by the
Assistant Executive Assistant Executive ClassI,
Special Project, Sub Division, Karad of the Public
Works Department. His submission is that the
cancellation of allotment of the plots was not
necessary especially when there are other plots
available abutting the plots allotted to the
petitioners which are not affected by the road

¶22

4 wp2355

¶23

widening. His submission is that in any event the
impugned order has been passed without giving an
opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. The
submission of the learned AGP is that the allotment
was made to the petitioners by the Collector but the
said offer was not accepted by the petitioners. He,
therefore, submits that no interference is called
for in writ jurisdiction.

¶24

6We have considered the submissions. After
accepting the case made out by the petitioners that
as the project affected persons they are entitled to
allotment of plots, under the order dated 28th April
2014, the plots were allotted to the petitioners by
the Sub Divisional Officer. The said order
specifically records that there was an approval
granted by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune on 19th
February 2014. The order also records that in
exercise of power conferred by the Collector that
the order of allotment was being made by the Sub
Divisional Officer in accordance with subsection
(1) of section 16 of the Maharashtra Rehabilitation
of the Project Affected Persons Act,1999.

¶25

7We have perused the impugned order dated 12th
June 2014. By the said orderr, on the basis of the
representation made by the Assistant Executive,
ClassI of PWD, the order of allotment made earlier
to the petitioners has been cancelled. Even in the
reply filed by Shri Pawar, the Sub Divisional
Officer, it is not the case made out by the
respondents that an opportunity of being heard was

¶26

5 wp2355

¶27

granted to the petitioners before passing the
impugned order dated 12th June 2014. Valuable right
was created in favour of the petitioners by way of
allotment of the plots for their rehabilitation.
The plots allotted to the petitioners cannot be
withdrawn without following the principles of
natural justice. The allotment of plots made to
the petitioners is sought to be cancelled without
giving an opportunity of being heard to them. Such
action is in violation of Article 300A of the
Constitution of India. Merely because some other
plots were offered and that the petitioners declined
to accept the said plots will not validate the
illegal action of cancellation of the earlier
allotment of the plots to the petitioners.

¶28

8Hence, the impugned order dated 12th June 2014
cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petition
will have to be allowed in terms of prayer clause
(a). Consequently, prayer clauses (b) and(c) will
have to be granted. However, this order will not
prevent the respondents from initiating appropriate
proceedings for cancellation of the order of
allotment. Needless to state that no such order
shall be passed without giving an adequate
opportunity of being heard to the petitioners.

¶29

9 Accordingly, we pass the following order:

¶30

(I)Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer
clauses (a) to(c);
(II)We, however, make it clear that this

¶31

6 wp2355

¶32

Judgment and Order will not preclude the
respondents from initiating proceedings for
cancellation of allotment of plots made to the
petitioners;

¶33

(III)Needless to state that such action can be
taken in accordance with law only after
following principles of natural justice;

¶34

(IV)Writ petition is disposed of on above terms
with no order as to costs.

¶35

(C.V.BHADANG,J.)

Pandurang Vitthal Kumbhar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandurang Vitthal Kumbhar and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Rashtriya Ekta Hawkers Union Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Kamlakar Rama Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mr. Sagar Shivajirao Jondhale Vs Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Shri. Mansingh Genu Roman and Ors. Vs the Collector, Satara and Ors.

Shri. Suresh Maruti Kamble (Decd) through Lr. Smt. Janabai Kamble Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Aba Nana Dubbal, through Power of Attorney, Mohan Aba Dubbal Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Rehabilitation and Ors.