Writ petition challenging an order directing sale of land due to unpaid royalty. Court set aside order accepting undertaking to pay dues and directed unfreezing of property, pending final determination.
Impugned order dated 21.2.2017 set aside; Tahasildar to de-freeze attached property.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP2667.17.sxw
IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2667 OF 2017
Supreme Infrastructure India Ltd. ... Petitioner v/s The Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhiwandi Division, District Thane and others ... Respondents
Mr Jitendra Gaikwad i/b Mr Anilkumar Patil for Petitioner. Mr M.C. Walimbe, AGP for Respondent - State.
CORAM: V.M. KANADE & P.R. BORA, JJ.
DATE : 2ND MARCH 2017
P.C. :-
of the Petitioner and Mr Walimbe, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the Respondent - State.
2017 passed by the Tahasildar, Bhiwandi. By the said order, the Tahasildar was pleased to give the direction to sell the property and
1 of 3
VRD
WP2667.17.sxw
the land belonging to the Petitioner for non-payment of royalty to the tune of Rs.17,23,78,243/-. The Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has undertaken the work of construction of two bridges, one at Mankoli and the other at Ranjaoli in Thane District. He submitted that the said work would be completed on or before 31st March 2017. He submitted that the impugned order is passed without giving any notice or without hearing the Petitioner. It is further submitted that the Petitioner has filed three Appeals under section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code before the Collector, Thane and the fourth Appeal was decided by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhiwandi who was pleased to set aside the show cause notice and remand the matter back to the Tahasildar for the purpose of determination of royalty. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that this Court has by order dated 4th May 2016 was pleased to direct that the Appeals which are pending shall be decided within eight weeks. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that on priority basis, the order may be passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer for remanding the
matter back by Tahasildar. It is further submitted that the Petitioner undertakes to pay the amount of royalty as determined by the
2 of 3
VRD
WP2667.17.sxw
Tahasildar, if any, and confirmed by the Appellate Authority or finally confirmed by this Court. The said undertaking is given by Mr Mahesh Shivde, Deputy General Manager of the Petitioner Company.
(P.R. BORA, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)
3 of 3
VRD
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order directing sale of land for non-payment of royalty should be set aside when an undertaking is given to pay dues.
Whether the Tahasildar's order was passed without notice or hearing.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
V.M. Kanade
P.R. Bora
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
