Partly allowed

Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Magasvargiya Kashtakari Sahkari Griha Nirman Society Ltd, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC20 Jun 2016WP/8597/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner society sought land allotment to build houses for SC members. Application rejected based on a Government Resolution implementing Jagpalsingh Supreme Court directions. The High Court interpreted these directions and decided that state governments cannot be prohibited from granting land to eligible applicants under statutory rules.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Government Resolution order is quashed. The Respondent Authority shall consider the petitioner's application on merits in accordance with Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government

Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Magasvargiya Kashtakari Sahkari Griha… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 WP8597.15

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 8597 OF 2015

¶4

Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Magasvargiya Kashtakari Sahkari Griha Nirman Society Ltd., Through its Chairman, Ashok Shankarrao Dhanedhar, Age : 53 Years, Occu. : Labourer, R/o. : Priyadarshani Indira Nagar, Garkheda, Aurangabad, Dist. : Aurangabad .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra, Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32.

¶7

The Collector, Collectorate Office, Aurangabad .. Respondents

¶8

Shri Madhav P. Gude, Advocate for the Petitioner. Smt. A. V. Gondhalekar , A. G. P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶9

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND K. K. SONAWANE, JJ. DATE : 20TH JUNE, 2016.

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J. ) :-

¶11

Rule.

¶12

Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing.

¶13

Mr. Gude, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶14

2 WP8597.15

¶15

that, the petitioner’s society is consisting of members of the backward class i.e. scheduled caste. The aim and object of the society is to purchase the land and build the houses meant for backward class members. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner had applied for allottment of land for the purpose of construction of houses, however, the said application has been rejected solely on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 12^th July, 2011. The learned counsel submits that, the said Government Resolution is issued only on the count that, the Apex Court in a case of Jagpalsingh and others Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2011 AIR S.C. 1123 had issued certain directions. The learned counsel states that, the said directions would not come in the way of the petitioner. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Writ Petition No. 117 of 2012 dated 03^rd August, 2012.

¶16

Mrs. Gondhalekar, the learned A. G. P. states that, the said Government Resolution has been issued in consonance with the directions issued by the Apex Court in a case of Jagpalsingh and others Vs. State of Punjab referred to supra. No error has been committed while passing the impugned order.

¶17

We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the respective parties and the judgment delivered by this court in Writ Petition No. 117 of 2012 referred to supra.

¶18

This court in the aforereferred judgment has interpreted the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Jagpalsingh and others Vs. State of Punjab. It has put a gloss over the said judgment and as stated in the said judgment that the judgment of Apex

¶19

3 WP8597.15

¶20

Court cannot be read to mean that the State Government has been prohibited from granting land in accordance with provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of Government Lands ) Rules, 1971 to eligible applicants.

¶21

In light of the above, the impugned order (Exh. P – 4, Page 175) is quashed and set aside. The Respondent / Authority shall consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue ( Disposal of Government Lands ) Rules, 1971 and take decision upon the same on its own merits, in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within six (6) months.

¶22

The Writ Petition is accordingly partly allowed. No costs.

¶23

[ K. K. SONAWANE, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶24

sam/June.16

Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Magasvargiya Kashtakari Sahkari Griha Nirman Society Ltd, Aurangabad v. State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Magasvargiya Kashtakari Sahkari Griha Nirman Society Ltd, Aurangabad v. 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Rana Sahebrao Mannuram through Its Partner Anil Jagannath Rana Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Balu Karbhari Ranmale and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Shaikh Hamid Shaikh Rahim Vs State of Maharashtra and Another

Sudhakar Vishnupant Subhedar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shahada Taluka Co-Operative Education Society Limited Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pandurang Bandu Bhalerao Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others