Quashed

Bharat Nivrutti Deshmukh v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC26 Oct 2016WP/7343/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The full bench quashed the Additional Tahsildar's order stopping sand excavation as the allotted period for petitioners had expired (30.9.2016), rendering the order ineffective. The matter was remanded to the constituted Committee for a final decision within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; directions to Committee to decide proceedings within eight weeks.

Bharat Nivrutti Deshmukh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2016) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.7343 OF 2016

¶6

Bharat S/o Nivrutti Deshmukh Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others. WITH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.9141 OF 2016

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶9

Court's or Judge's orders

¶10

Mr.S.B.Talekar, advocate for the petitioners. Ms.S.S.Raut, A.G.P. for the State.

¶11

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND K.L.WADANE,JJ. Date : 26.10.2016.

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

Heard.

¶14

The petitioners assail the orders/communications of the Addl. Tahsildar, Aurangabad, thereby directing the petitioners to stop excavation and transportation of sand.

¶15

It is not disputed that the petitioners were allotted the concerned sand spot. According to the learned A.G.P. on finding that illegal activities were carried out, the Addl. Tahsildar, had rightly passed an order directing the petitioners to temporarily stop the excavation and transportation of sand. According to learned

¶16

¶17

A.G.P., the same is in consonance with the powers vested in him, pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 12.3.2013.

¶18

According to Mr.Talekar, learned counsel, it is only the Committee who could have passed the order. Even as per Government Resolution dated 12.3.2013, Additional Tahsildar has no powers to pass orders directing stoppage of excavation and transportation of sand. The learned counsel relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of "Vijay Dashrath Shirbhate Vs. State of Maharashtra and another" reported in 2010 (1) Mh.L.J.936, states that when the sand spot is allotted to the petitioners and if the mineral is extracted from the spot allotted then Section 48(7) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code does not apply.

¶19

Learned A.G.P. further states that the complaint now has been referred to the Committee constituted as per Government Resolution dated 12.3.2013 and the Committee would take final decision.

¶20

The period allotted to the petitioners for excavation and transportation of the sand has come to an end on 30.9.2016. The impugned order of the Addl. Tahsildar, thereby directing the petitioners to temporarily stop the excavation and transportation of the sand has also lost its efficacy. The matter is now already referred to the Committee and the Committee would take final

¶21

¶22

decision upon it and further course of action would be pursuant to the decision of the Committee.

¶23

In view of that as the impugned orders has lost its efficacy, they stand quashed. The Committee shall endeavour to decide the proceedings before it expeditiously, preferably within eight (8) weeks. Needless to state, it is open for the parties to assail the order passed by the Committee as may be permissible in law.

¶24

The Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs.

¶25

(K.L.WADANE,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

¶26

Dt.26.10.2016. asp/office/wp7343.16

¶27

Bharat Nivrutti Deshmukh v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Nivrutti Deshmukh 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

Nivrutti Yadav Khadse and Ors. Vs State of Mah and Ors.

Rameshwar Baburao Waghmare Vs Chairman Aurangabad Jalna Gramin Bank and Ors.

Nandkumar Kundlik Wagh and Another Vs the Union of India and Others

Ganesh Kakasaheb Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Dr Eknath Khanderao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Walandi Bahuddeshiya Shikshan Prasarak Mandal through Its President Layak Ali Jafar Saab Saudagar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others