Disposed

Dhanraj Ramrao Jadhav and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC5 Jul 2019PIL/116/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Public Interest Litigation concerns encroachments on Grampanchayat land at village Nandur Ghat. The Court held that the Collector and Tahsildar cannot remain idle upon issuing directions to the local authority. They must ensure the removal of encroachments within six months by executing a special action plan in coordination with the Grampanchayat, Police, and PWD.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to the Collector, Beed to ensure removal of encroachments on Grampanchayat land within six months.

Dhanraj Ramrao Jadhav and Another Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

13-PIL.116-17.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.116 OF 2017

¶4

DHANRAJ RAMRAO JADHAV AND ANOTHER
VERSUS

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶6

Mr. N.L.Jadhav, Advocate for petitioners
Mr. P.S.Patil, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 4
Mr. U.B.Bondar, Advocate for respondent no.5

¶7

 CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE
 AND
R.G. AVACHAT, JJ.
 DATE : JULY 05, 2019

¶8

PER COURT :-

¶9

Heard Mr.Jadhav, learned Counsel for the

¶10

petitioners, Mr.Patil, learned AGP for respondent nos.1
to 4 and Mr.Bondar, learned Counsel for respondent
no.5.

¶11

2.Perusal of the record shows that on

¶12

19.12.2017, notices were issued to the respondents. In

¶13

response to the notice, affidavit-in reply is filed on
behalf of respondent nos.3 and 4 through Shri.Sachin
s/o. Suresh Deshpande, In-charge Tahsildar, Kaij.

¶14

3.The grievance of the petitioner, in short,
is of inaction on the part of the respondents/
authorities to remove the encroachments on
Grampanchayat land, situate at Gat No.3, village
Nandur Ghat, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed. In the prayer
clause, the village is named as Ghat Nandur.
However, Mr.Bondar, learned Counsel for respondent
no.5 submits that there are two different villages
namely, Ghat Nandur and Nandur Ghat and the grievance
in the present matter is in respect of Nandur Ghat.

¶15

4.The petitioner has placed on record copies
of various representations submitted to the district
administration, including the Collector, Beed and the
Tahsildar, Beed. A copy of panchanama dated 23.1.2016
is also annexed placed on record. There are certain
photographs placed on record collectively at Exh.H.
Affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent
nos.3 and 4 refers to exchange of communications
between the Tahsildar, Kaij and the Circle Inspector,

¶16

Nandur Ghat as well as between the Tahsildar, Kaij
and the Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti,
Kaij. It will be useful for our purposes to refer to
the statements in the affidavit reflected in
paragraphs 8, 9 and 10:-

¶17

“ 8 . I say and submit that the concerned Talathi, Circle Officer nandurghat carried out spot inspection and prepared panchnama on 12/9/2016, 23/9/2016 and submitted the report to Tahsildar Kaij on 14/9/2016. It is submitted in the said report that the land survey no.3 is is allotted to Gram panchayat Nandurghat and 28 sheds are erected. Copies of above panchnama, report of Circle Officer dated 14/9/2016 are annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit “R-6” (colly).

¶18

9. I say and submit that the Grampanchayat, Nandurghat while making construction of tin sheds on Gat No.3, prior permission from the office of respondent no.3 has not been obtained. According to the Government Circulars

¶19

4 13-PIL.116-17

¶20

dated 7/9/2010 and 10/10/2013 issued by Revenue and Forest Department, any encroachment over Gairan land has to be removed by the Local Authority and in this particular case respondent no.5 Grampanchayat is the local authority to which land Gat No.3 is transferred. Copies of Government Circular dated 7/6/2010 and 10/10/2013 are annexed herewith and marked Exhibit “R7” (Colly).

¶21

10. I say and submit that the respondent no.4 on 6/9/2016 and 13/12/2017 directed the Block Education Officer, Kaij i.e. Controlling Authority of Grampanchayat to take appropriate action in view of the complaint of petitioner dated 9/12/2017 and to submit the report to respondent no.4. As per Government Resolution dated 12/7/2011 of Revenue and Forest Department, the duty of removal of encroacher is of concerned local authority, but the Block Education Officer has not removed he said encroachment. Copy of Govt. Resolution

¶22

5 13-PIL.116-17

¶23

dated 12/7/2011 is annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit “R-8”.

¶24

5.On perusal of these submissions qua the

¶25

Government Resolution dated 12.07.2011, we are of the
opinion that the authorities namely, the Collector,
Beed and Tahsildar, Kaij, cannot sit idle, only with
the satisfaction that necessary directions are issued
to the Grampanchayat for removal of the encroachments

¶26

and the further job is of the Grampanchayt being
local authority to remove these encroachments.

¶27

6.Perusal of the Government Resolution dated
12.07.2011 shows that it has been issued on the
backdrop of the authoritative decision of the Hon'ble

¶28

Apex Court in respect of the encroachment, in the
case of Jagpal Singh and ors. Vs. State of Punjab and
ors.(CivilAppealNo.1132/2011@SLP(C)

¶29

No.3109/2011. A procedure has been set down in the
Government Resolution to deal with the issue of
encroachment. This procedure also refers to an

¶30

6 13-PIL.116-17

¶31

opportunity of hearing by issuance of notice to the

¶32

alleged encroacher. The State Government states in
the Government Resolution dated 12.07.2011 that the
encroachments, save and except under Clause 7(4) of
the Government Resolution, are to be removed even
though they are standing for a long period and even
if expenditure is incurred for construction thereof.
It is stated in the Government Resolution that the
action for such removal of encroachments be initiated
at the earliest by setting out a special action plan
with the assistance of the local authorities and the
concerned Tahsildar and Public Works Department.
The Police Department is expected to provide all
necessary assistance to the local authorities. The
Government Resolution specifically states that all
these authorities such as local authority, Tahsildar,
Public Works Department and Police Department shall
act in coordination with each other and the action is

¶33

to be initiated as if it is their collective
responsibility. Thus, the Government Resolution is

¶34

7 13-PIL.116-17

¶35

more than clear in respect of the action to be

¶36

initiated for removal of the encroachments. We see

¶37

no impediment for respondent no.3 – Collector, Beed
and respondent no.4 – Tahsildar, Kaij, to take
appropriate action by following Government Resolution
dated 12.07.2011.

¶38

7.Thus, we hope and trust that respondent no.3
– Collector, Beed, would take proper steps so as to
conclude the action of removal of encroachments to
its logical end, as expeditiously as possible and not
later than six months from the date of this order.

¶39

This exercise would serve the purpose of the
petitioners in approaching this Court by way of
present Public Interest Litigation.

¶40

8.As the Government Resolution speaks of
providing an opportunity of hearing, the Collector,
Beed, if finds it appropriate, may give an
opportunity of hearing to the Grampanchayat.

¶41

8 13-PIL.116-17

¶42

9.With these observations, the Public Interest
Litigation is disposed of.

¶43

10.Authenticated copy of this order be provided
to learned AGP.

¶44

11.Learned AGP to communicate this order to the

¶45

respondent no.3 – Collector, Beed.

¶46

kbp

Dhanraj Ramrao Jadhav and Another v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanraj Ramrao Jadhav 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nivas Maruti Mane and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Mr. Vasudev Ananta Bhoir Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Nivas Maruti Mane and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Vidarbha Mazdoor Sangh, Nagpur Thr. President, Shubham Manoharji Wahane Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Honble District Collector, Nagpur and Others

Mrs. Swati Sayaji Patil Vs State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Anr.

Nalin Kalyanji Vira Vs Municipal Commissioner of M.C.of Greater Mumbai and 7 Ors.

Santoshi Milind More Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Mr. Rajkumar Shukla Vs the State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Vimalbai Ashokchand Kankariya Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Neeta Prabhu Dhimdhime Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

Sakhubai Piraji Madale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sk. Sujauddin Sk. Khaliluddin Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others

Mauli Sevabhavi Sanstha, Raimoha Thr President Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Chandulal Mohanlal Biyani Vs the Chief Enginer Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd. and Others