Disposed

Ramesh Nago Shelar, Shirpur,Dhule v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC13 Dec 2018PIL/29/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL filed by a retired Police Sub Inspector representing the State Reserve Police Force, the High Court ordered a joint meeting between senior officers of the Home, Revenue, Forest, and Police departments to determine if alternate land exists for social welfare purposes before directing the surrender of 4.60 acres of police land, ensuring future decisions are binding on both wings.

What did the court decide?

A joint meeting of High Court officials to be held within three months to decide on the utilization of alternate or existing land for public purposes without harming police assets; the decision to be

Ramesh Nago Shelar, Shirpur,Dhule Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.29 OF 2014

¶3

Ramesh s/o Nago Shelar,
Age : 59 years, Occu. Retired
Government servant (retired as
Police Sub Inspector),
State Reserve Police Force (Group-VI),
Dhule, R/o Village Waghadi,
Taluka Shirpur, District DhulePETITIONER

¶4

VERSUS

¶5

1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, M.S. Mantralaya, Mumbai-32

¶6

2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, M.S. Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶7

3. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Revenue and Forests, M.S. Mantralaya, Mumbai

¶8

4. The Director General of Police, M.S., Mumbai

¶9

5. The Additional Director General of Police, State Reserve Police Force, M.S., Mumbai

¶10

6. The Inspector General of Police, State Reserve Police Force, Nagpur

¶11

7. The Commandant, State Reserve Police Force (Group-VI), Dhule

¶12

8. The Collector, Dhule

¶13

¶14

PIL29-2014

¶15

9. The Special District Social Welfare Officer, Dhule

¶16

10. Mahila Arthik Vikas Mahamandal, Dhule through its Coordinating Officer

¶17

11. The Project Officer, Integrated Tribal Development Department, Dhule

¶18

12. The Cent-Rural Self Employment Training Institute, Dhule, through its Director

¶19

RESPONDENTS

¶20

Mr. Rajendra S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. A.B. Girase, Government Pleader for the
respondents/State

¶21

CORAM :NARESH H. PATIL, C.J. AND
N.M. JAMDAR, J.

¶22

DATE : 13^th DECEMBER, 2018

¶23

ORDER :

¶24

The petitioner, a retired Police Sub Inspector,

¶25

who served the State Reserve Police Force (“SRPF”, for
short), Group-VI, Dhule, has filed the present Public
Interest Litigation, praying for the following
substantive reliefs:-

¶26

“(C)Rule may kindly be made absolute by
allowing the PIL Petition, thereby quashing and
setting aside the impugned order dated
04/02/2008 (Annexure-'C') issued from the
office of the Collector, Dhule of forfeiting 4

¶27

3 PIL29-2014

¶28

Hectors, 60 Ares land of State Reserve Police
Force Dhule (Group-VI) from the land Survey
No.22/A 1-1, situated at village Mahindale,
Taluka and District Dhule.

¶29

(D)Rule may kindly be made absolute by
allowing the PIL Petition, thereby quashing and
setting aside the correction order dated
24/01/2011 (Annexure-'C' colly.) issued from
the office of the respondent No.8/Collector,
Dhule in respect of allotting 0.80 R land from
RespondentNo.10/MahilaArthikVikas
Mahamandal, Dhule to Respondent No.12/Cent-
Rural Self Employment Training Institute, Dhule
Survey No.22/A 1-1, situated at village
Mahindale, Taluka and District Dhule.”

¶30

2.The State of Maharashtra had allotted 26 Acres

¶31

of land in Dhule for its use by the SRPF for
construction of quarters in the year 1978. Admittedly,
no quarter could be constructed. In the meanwhile, the
Collector, by an order dated 4th February, 2008, has
forfeited the land to the extent of 4 Hectors and 60
Ares by directing to surrender the land for construction
of Boys and Girls Hostel belonging to Scheduled Castes;
construction of Boys Hostel of Scheduled Tribes and for
the construction of Women Training School/Centre under
the Rural Development Department.

¶32

4 PIL29-2014

¶33

3.The learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the said order dated 4th
February, 2008, passed by the Collector was the subject
matter of challenge by the SRPF before the Divisional
Commissioner, Nashik, who, by order dated 4th March,2009,
dismissed the appeal. The SRPF filed further appeal
before the Hon'ble Minister, which came to be dismissed
on 19th June, 2012. The Review Application preferred by
the SRPF also came to be dismissed.

¶34

4.It is submitted that so far, no proceeding has
been filed by the aggrieved party against the said
orders, referred to above.

¶35

5.The learned counsel for the petitioner, who has
served the SRPF, submits that it would not be in the
interest of the Department to forfeit the land, which
was handed over to SRPF. Relying on the pleadings and in
particular the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent
Nos.4 to 7, the learned counsel submits that there is
plenty of land available around Dhule city for the
purpose of construction of the hostels and the Training
Centre.

¶36

PIL29-2014

¶37

¶38

6.One of the contentions of respondent Nos.4 to

¶39

7, as appearing in their affidavit, reads as under :

¶40

“That since beginning of institution/Para
military force the allotted land is under use.
The said land required under the natural form
due to the modes of working of Para Military
Force and its operation. For the said training
certain amount of secrecy is also necessary.
The basic training imparted is anti-naxalite
training such as field craft as ell as for
judging distance, camouflage and concealment,
ambush, counter ambush, anti-naxalite training
and gorilla warfare training for all those
trainings the natural form of the land is
absolutely necessary. Even for the successive
operation against the gorilla war day and night
demonstrations are carried out. The institution
is giving training in the view of internal
security of nation and maintenance of peace and
harmony.”

¶41

The learned counsel submits that a proper and balanced
approach is required to be adopted by both the wings of
the State so that the interests of both the Departments
are protected and the larger public interest is taken
care of.

¶42

6 PIL29-2014

¶43

7.The learned Government Pleader has referred to
the affidavit filed on behalf of the Collector –
respondent No.8, through Shri Dattatrays s/o Eknath
Shejul, who was the then Tahsildar, Dhule. In paragraph
Nos.3 and 4, the deponent therein stated as under :-

¶44

“3.Deponent says and submits that the
contents of Para No.2 of the petition are true
and correct. The points raised in the
representation dated 4.3.2015 filed by the
petitioner are more (or) less similar to the
grounds raised in proposed writ petition to be
filed separately by respondent number 7 before
this Hon'ble Court, if the said proposal is
approved by the respondent number 2 pending
before him for approval.

¶45

4.Deponent says and submits that, the
contents of Para No.3 of the Petition, to the
extent that it is true that respondent No.8
Collector, Dhule vide its administrative
order/letter dated 13/09/1978 allotted the
Government land in favour of S.R.P.F. Group-VI,
Dhule, situated at village Mahindale, Tq. &
Dist. Dhule for permanent location of S.R.P.F.
Group-VI Dhule. It is also true that the said
land is transferred under some conditions for
the utilization. The S.R.P.F. Group-VI Dhule
has not violated any conditions imposed by the

¶46

7 PIL29-2014

¶47

respondent no.8. As such the total land
allotted to respondent no.7 is under the
utilization continuously as per the training
requirement or for other purposes.”

¶48

8.The learned Government Pleader submits that

¶49

there is sufficient land with the SRPF for conducting
day-today activities. The State has other social
obligations and after conducting necessary survey, The
State has decided to use part of the land allotted to
the SRPF. The interest of SRPF is no way adversely
affected. The purpose for which the land was allotted
to the SRPF was not fulfilled as no quarters could be
constructed.

¶50

9.We have perused the record and considered the
submissions advanced on behalf of both sides. Firstly,
we may observe that the situation like this where one
wing of the State litigates against another, needs to be
avoided. On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted

¶51

that the SRPF had challenged the orders passed by the
authorities before the Hon'ble Minister; however, the
contentions of the SRPF were not accepted.

¶52

10.We are informed that the SRPF was allotted 250
Acres of land earlier and further 26 Acres of land was

¶53

¶54

PIL29-2014

¶55

allotted to it in the year 1978 for construction of the

¶56

quarters. By the impugned order, the Collector has
directed the SRPF to surrender the land to the extent of
4 Hectors 60 Ares.

¶57

11.It is true that the SRPF is a vital and
important wing of the State Security Force. The land,
which was allotted to the SRPF, is required to be used

¶58

for various purposes, which are, in particular,
explained in the affidavit filed by respondent Nos.4 to
7. Certainly, there cannot be compromise in respect of
the essential requirements of the Security Forces. They

¶59

must be of paramount consideration for the
administration of the Security Forces.

¶60

12.However, in the facts of the case, we find that
the land only to the extent of 4 Hectors 60 Ares only is
required by the State for the purposes which are
enlisted hereinabove.

¶61

13.In view of above facts and circumstances, it
would be appropriate if a joint meeting is held between
the Secretaries of Home Department, Revenue and Forest
Department, Additional Director General of Police, State
Reserve Police Force on the following issues:-

¶62

¶63

PIL29-2014

¶64

(i)Whether any other portion of the land

¶65

in possession of the State Reserve Police
Force, to the extent of 4 Hectors 60 Ares, can
be utilized by the State for the purposes of
(a) construction of Boys and Girls Hostel
belonging to Scheduled Castes, (b) construction
of Boys Hostel of Scheduled Tribes and (c)
construction of Women Training School/Centre
under the Rural Development Department.

¶66

(ii)Is there any alternate land of the
State Government than the one which was
allotted to the State Reserve Police Force
available for the aforesaid purposes.

¶67

14.The Committee consisting of above mentioned
Secretaries/Officials shall discuss the above issues and
take final decision thereon, within a period of three
months from today, which shall be communicated to the
State Government. The minutes of the meeting shall be
recorded and a copy thereof be forwarded to the Chief
Secretary of the State. The said decision shall be
binding on both the wings of the State Government.

¶68

10 PIL29-2014

¶69

15.We make it clear that in case a decision to

¶70

surrender the 4 Hectors 60 Ares land in question is

¶71

retained, then the said surrendered land shall be used
only for the said public purpose specified in the
impugned order.

¶72

16.With the above directions, the Public Interest
Litigation is disposed of. No costs.

¶73

17.ThelearnedGovernmentPleadershall

¶74

communicate this order to all the concerned.

¶75

[N.M. JAMDAR, J.][CHIEF JUSTICE]

¶76

npj/PIL29-2014

Ramesh Nago Shelar, Shirpur,Dhule v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Nago Shelar, Shirpur,Dhule 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

Kisan Patilba Kavad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Aakhil Bharatiya Dhobi Samaj Sangh Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Dr. Dattatray Nana Mali vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Shri. Arun Bhimrao Bhosale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dinesh Suresh Deore Vs the Union of India and Others

Mr. Rajesh Madhukar Pandit and Ors. Vs the Nashik Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Mah. Rajya Karmachari Mahasangh (Prop.) Thru Shri. Mukund H. Jadwar vs Chief Secretary, State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Subhash Namdev Salunkhe Vs State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Ors.

Mohan Annasaheb Deshmukh Vs Shrimati Parwtibai Vitthalrao Ingale and Othres

Rakshitkumar Shivajirao Aher Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mohammad Amir Hamja Mulla and Another Vs the Additional Collector Osmanabad and Others

Sangram Vyankat Hande Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ashok Sambhaji Dalpe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jitendra Ramsing Rajput Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others