Disposed

Rajan Dayal Pange v. the Collector of Sindhudurg and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Dec 2018WP/3571/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court observed that the petitioner has preferred an appeal under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code challenging the order under attack. Finding the matter pending in appellate proceedings, the Court disposed of the writ petition by extending interim relief to operate for three months, expressly reserving adjudication on merits for the appellate forum.

What did the court decide?

The interim order passed on 3rd May 2007 extended to continue for a period of three months; the writ petition and civil application disposed of.

Rajan Dayal Pange Vs the Collector of Sindhudurg and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 wp-3571.07.doc

¶2

pmw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3571 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1913 OF 2007

¶5

Rajan Dayal Pange … Petitioner Vs.

¶6

The Collector of Sindhudurg and Ors. … Respondents

¶7

Mr. Narendra V. Walawalkar, Senior Advocate I/by Mr. G.H. Keluskar for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. P.G. Sawant, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4.

¶9

Mr. Amogh K. Karandikar I/by Khandeparkar & Co. for the Applicant and the Respondent No.3.

¶10

CORAM : A.S.OKA AND SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 6^th DECEMBER 2018.

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per A.S. Oka, J.)

¶13

1 When this petition was called out for final hearing in the last week, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that an appeal was preferred by the petitioner for challenging the order of the Tahsildar dated 27^th March 2006 by which the application for regularisation of non-agricultural use made by the petitioner was rejected. The said appeal was dismissed by order dated 23^rd May 2006. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed on record copies of

¶14

1 of 4

¶15

2 wp-3571.07.doc

¶16

memorandum of appeal and condonation application therein filed by the petitioner on 5^th December 2018 before the District Collector for challenging the order of the first appellate authority.

¶17

2 By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is seeking a prayer to quash the notice/order dated 20^th April 2007. A license was granted to the petitioner to run a hotel on the land subject matter of this petition. By the notice/order dated 20^th April 2007, the petitioner was informed that on the failure of the petitioner to produce permission for non-agricultural use within 8 days, the license granted to the petitioner to run hotel would be cancelled.

¶18

3 The case of the petitioner is that a temporary permission for non-agricultural use of the subject land was granted to him on the basis of which non-agricultural user was commenced. The petitioner made an application for regularisation of non-agricultural use. The said application was rejected by a communication dated 31^st January 2006. There was one more application for regularisation made by the petitioner which was rejected by a letter dated 5^th May 2006. The petition discloses that on 26^th December 2006, another application was made by the petitioner for grant of permission to use the said land for non-agricultural purposes. By a letter dated 9^th January 2007 the said application was rejected. The contention of the petitioner is that similarly placed person has been granted non-agricultural permission.

¶19

2 of 4

¶20

3 wp-3571.07.doc

¶21

4 The license granted to the petitioner to run hotel is sought to be cancelled only on the ground that there is no valid and subsisting permission granted under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 to use the said land for non-agricultural purposes. Now, the issue whether the petitioner is entitled to permission for nonagricultural use of the land will be decided in the pending appeal. It cannot be disputed that use as a hotel is a non-agricultural use. The petitioner was protected by this Court by granting interim relief in terms of prayer clause (c) on 3^rd May 2007. By the said interim relief, the impugned notice/order dated 20^th April 2007 was stayed.

¶22

5 Considering the fact that the petitioner has taken recourse to the remedy under the said Code, it is not necessary to entertain the present petition. To enable the petitioner to move the second appellate authority for grant of appropriate interim relief, for a limited period, the interim relief can be extended.

¶23

6 Accordingly, we dispose of the petition by passing the following order :-

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(i) It will be open for the petitioner to prosecute the second appeal and delay condonation application filed on 5^th December 2018 before the District Collector of Sindhudurg District, the copies of which are taken on record and marked as ‘A-1’ and ‘A-2’ for identification;

¶26

3 of 4

¶27

4 wp-3571.07.doc

¶28

(ii) To enable the petitioner to apply to the second appellate authority for grant of appropriate interim relief, interim order passed on 3^rd May 2007 will continue to operate for a period of three months from today;

¶29

(iii) We make it clear that the appeal, the application for condonation of delay and the prayer for interim relief in the appeal will be decided on its own merits without being influenced by continuation of the interim order;

¶30

(iv) We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on the merits of the controversy regarding entitlement of the petitioner to grant of permission for non-agricultural use;

¶31

(v) The petition is disposed of on above terms;

¶32

(vi) Rule is accordingly disposed of;

¶33

(vii) Civil Application No.1913 of 2007 does not survive and the same is disposed of.

¶34

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.) (A.S.OKA, J.)

¶35

4 of 4

Rajan Dayal Pange v. the Collector of Sindhudurg and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan Dayal Pange v. the Collector of Sindhudurg and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Balaso Dadu Dongale Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretar, Home Dept. and Ors.

Prashant Bapu Bhalerao Vs Union of India and Ors.

Jayshree Mahendra Lohar Vs Food Corporation of India through Its General Manager and Anr.

Shri. Kamalakar Bhagwan Puri Vs the Chief Officer, Children Aid Society, Central Officer and Ors.

Shri. R. S. Jaiswar Vs Chief Security Commissioner and Anr.

Union of India and Ors. Vs H.B.Mishra