This High Court in Aurangabad dismissed a Public Interest Litigation in limine as devoid of merit. The court refused an adjournment prayer, noting a lack of urgency and insufficient grounds to challenge land sale permissions and mutations assigned to private parties.
The PIL stands dismissed in limine.
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.
1 Sr910PIL123.2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 123 OF 2018
Shaikh Manjur Shaikh Chand
Petitioner...
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Respondents...
Mr Sharad S. Solanke, Advocate for the petitioner Mr S. Y. Mahajan, AGP for respondent/State
CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE & MANISH PITALE, JJ.
DATE : 06TH OCTOBER, 2018.
ORAL ORDER :-
2 Sr910PIL123.2018
prayer clause 'B', whereby the petitioner seeks directions against respondent/authority to take action against respondent Nos. 7 to 9, reads as under:
B] Issue writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus, directing the respondent no. 2 to hold a detail inquiry into the affairs of the respondent no.7 to 9 in respect of the permission obtained from respondent no.3 of land Gut No. 18 area 1 H. 70 R land and mutate their name in Gram Panchayat, Property Tax Registered at Walkeshwar Tq. Ambad Dist. Jalna as well as sale transaction making by respondent no.7 to 9 in the office of respondent no.5 and stern action against the respondent no. 7 to 9 in the nature of cancellation of the permission issued for sale occupant class II land as well as cancellation of sale deed in fvor of respondent no.7 to 9 and for that purpose issue necessary orders.
3 Sr910PIL123.2018
have deposited lesser amount than what is required to be deposited in the Govt. Treasury. The ld. counsel also submitted, that respondents No. 7, 8 and 9 in connivance of the Village Revenue Authorities played mischief and cheated the Government, which covers criminal act allegedly committed by these respondents. Insofar as the grievance of the petitioner that respondents No. 7, 8 and 9 committed certain mischief which covers offence under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, the petitioner is certainly at liberty to take recourse to the remedy available to him including approaching the competent forum by setting criminal law in motion. Admittedly, this is not done by the petitioner.
4 Sr910PIL123.2018
deposited an amount of Rs. 4,48,000/- as 50% of the amount of valuation of the land by way of Najrana to the State Government. Copy of the challan was also annexed to the application. Considering these documents and the relevant provision, the Dy. Collector, Jalna passed an order dt. 10.10.2013. It was also the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the deposit of amount by way of Najrana is also lesser than what is required to be deposited by these respondents. In support of this submission the learned counsel for the petitioner also invited our attention to a copy of circular dt. 25.08.1983 annexed to the petition at Exh.E. He places reliance on sub-clause (1) of clause 2 thereof, to submit that the prerequisite is of deposit of 75%. Though this submission of Mr Solanke looks attractive at first blush, but we are unable to accept this submission because it is only a partial reading of the circular and the circular states that, in the cases where the lands are situated other than the towns and city areas, the holder (alienor) shall pay to Government an amount equal to 50 per cent of the net unearned income i.e. 50 per cent of the difference between the market value or the price realised by way of sale whichever is higher and this condition of 75% amount under clause 2 of the said circular is for the lands within the limits of towns and cities and the object is also specified that there is a speedy urbanisation. As such, the State Government in its wisdom though it fit to grant the permission by directing the party to deposit 75% of
5 Sr910PIL123.2018
the amount. Now, the land against which the petitioner is having grievance is certainly not situated either in town or city. As such, this objection raised by the petitioner holds no merit.
[ MANISH PITALE ] [ PRASANNA B. VARALE ] JUDGE JUDGE
Punde
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a PIL claiming violation of land sale regulations fait devoid of merit due to lack of urgency and merit.
Whether the petitioner's grievance regarding the deposit amount and permission for Class II land sale warrants judicial interference.
Shaikh Manjur Shaikh Chand
The State of Maharashtra
Prasanna B. Varale
Manish Pitale
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
