Disposed

Valmik Pandharinath Wakchaure and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC1 Nov 2018PIL/5/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Bombay Bench at Aurangabad clubbed a PIL and a Writ Petition concerning encroachment on government lands. The court directed the District Collector to decide the representations on merits within sixteen weeks, ensuring the speaking order assigns reasons.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Collector to decide representations on merits within sixteen weeks and pass a speaking order.

Valmik Pandharinath Wakchaure and Another Vs the State of… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

935 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 5 OF 2018

¶3

WITH

¶4

CA/4661/2018 IN PIL/5/2018

¶5

WITH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 9199 OF 2018

¶7

VALMIK PANDHARINATH WAKCHAURE AND ANOTHER

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶10

...

¶11

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Ambetkar Arvind G.
AGP for Respondents 1 to 4, 6 and 7 : Mr. S.Y.Mahajan
Advocate for Respondents no. 5 : Mr. S.T.Shelke

¶12

…..

¶13

CORAM: PRASANNA B. VARALE
 AND

¶14

SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

¶15

DATE : NOVEMBER 1, 2018

¶16

O R D E R :

¶17

The present Public Interest Litigation No. 5

¶18

of 2018 as well as Writ Petition No. 9199 of 2018 are
clubbed together.

¶19

2. In PIL 5 of 2018, petitioner nos. 1 and 2, who

¶20

2 pil5.18

¶21

are the residents of Dhondewadi, Post Jawalke,

¶22

Taluka Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar, submitted
before this Court that they are public spirited
persons and certain Government lands are encroached
upon by the private persons. It was also submitted
in the petition that these petitioners along with
other villagers approached various authorities
raising this grievance, however, no action is
initiated against the encroachers.

¶23

3.In Writ Petition No. 9199 of 2018, the

¶24

petitioners admit that they are the encroachers, but
they pray for protection to them in view of the
Government Resoution, dated 16.2.2018. It is

¶25

submitted in Writ Petition No. 9199 of 2018 that the
petitioners are identically situated with some of the

¶26

villagers, who have been given benefit of the
Government Resolution or the Government policy. The
petitioners'prayerforregularizationof

¶27

encroachment is also pending before the District

¶28

¶29

pil5.18

¶30

Authority, namely the Collector.

¶31

4.On perusal of the documents placed on record

¶32

in PIL No. 5 of 2018, it reveals that the latest
representation, dated 9.11.2015 is submitted to the
Collector by the petitioners. It is stated in the
representation that all the villagers are approaching

¶33

the District Collector, but then perusal of the
representation shows that there are as many as ten
signatories to this representation including
petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2.

¶34

5.In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of
respondent nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7 through Shri Kishor
Kadam, Tahsildar, Kopergaon, it is stated that
certain part of the land of Gat No. 447 has been
allotted to a School and remaining land is vested
with the Village Panchayat. Then, it is further
submitted that out of Gat No. 448, part of the land
has been allotted for Gharkul purpose to the SC and

¶35

ST persons under the orders of the Collector. It is

¶36

then submitted that as per the provisions of law,
more particularly Section 53 of the Village Panchayat
Act, the Grampanchayat is the competent authority to
take certain actions in case of encroachment.

¶37

6.Now, as both these parties, namely the

¶38

petitioners in PIL and the petitioners in Writ
Petition No. 9199 of 2018 are before the Collector,
raising their respective grievances, in our opinion,

¶39

both the petitions can be disposed of by issuing
direction to the Collector, District Ahmednagar to
decide the representation of the petitioners, dated
9.11.2015 and the representations of the petitioners
in Writ Petition No. 9199 of 2018 within stipulated
time frame.

¶40

7.Accordingly, PIL 5 of 2018 and Writ Petition
No. 9199 of 2018 are disposed of by issuing direction
to the Collector, District Ahmednagar to decide the

¶41

5 pil5.18

¶42

representation of the petitioner, dated 9.11.2015 and

¶43

the representations of the petitioners in Writ
Petition No. 9199 of 2018, as expeditiously as
possible, and preferably within sixteen weeks from
the date of this order. Needless to state that said
exercise of decision be undertaken on the merits of
the claims submitted by the respective petitioners
and the Collector, Ahemdnagar shall pass the speaking
order assigning his reasons. We further make it
clear that if these parties pray for opportunity of
hearing, the Collector, Ahmednagar may grant such
opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. It
is made clear that the Collector, Ahmednagar is not
prevented from calling necessary record or material
from his subordinate officials, so as to facilitate
him to reach to an ultimate conclusion.

¶44

8.The petitioners have deposited an amount of
Rs.Ten Thousand in this Court to show their bona
fides. Petitioners are permitted to withdraw the

¶45

6 pil5.18

¶46

amount deposited by them in this Court.

¶47

9.With the above directions, both the PIL and
Writ Petition are disposed of.

¶48

dbm

Valmik Pandharinath Wakchaure and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Valmik Pandharinath Wakchaure and Another 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Baban Kate Vs the Union of India, the Ministry of Defence and Ors.

Paresh Rajesh Badnore Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Chandrabhan S/O Dhondopant Kolte and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Secretary, School Education and Sports Dept., Mumbai and Others

Rajesh Motheba Mhaske Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mukhatar Ali Yusuf Ali Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Maharashtra Apang Kamgar Kalyankari Sangh Thourgh District Vice President Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage through Mrs Shveta Kothavale Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Urban Land Development Dept. and Anr.

Shri. Suresh Annappa Gadge Vs the Renuka Sugars Ltd, Ganganagar, Ichalkaranji and Ors.

Lalit Bhakarrao Chaudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Harsha Jitendra Patil Vs Gulabrao Ananda Patil and Others

Kishor Balraj Totawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sangamner Loni Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. through Its Managing Director Mohammad Israil Vs the Governor of Maharashra through Its Executive Engineer and Others

Shaikhmohd Haneef Haji Mohd Hafeez Vs Peadeep Kumar Vyas and Others

Sudhir Prakashrao Sabane and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others