Disposed

Bhagwan Dagadu Patil and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC5 Dec 2019PIL/93/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that illegal construction of houses and tin sheds on government land reserved for grazing constitutes encroachment and directed the Collector to seek a report from the Gram Panchayat for demolition under the Gram Panchayat Act.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Collector to seek a report from the Gram Panchayat for demolition of illegal constructions; diversion of deposit to Child Care Centre.

Bhagwan Dagadu Patil and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 930-PIL-93-2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.93 OF 2017

¶4

BHAGWAN DAGADU PATIL AND OTHERS ...PETITIONERS

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶7

...RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr A.D. Shinde, Advocate for Petitioners Mr S.G. Sangle, AGP for Respondents Nos. 1 to 6 Mr S.P. Brahme, Advocate holding for Mr B.K. Patil, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 8 Mrs Chaitali Kutti-Choudhary, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 and 7

¶9

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE AND ANIL S. KILOR, JJ. DATE : 5^th DECEMBER, 2019

¶10

PER COURT :

¶11

Heard Mr Shinde, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr Sangle, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6, Mr S.P. Brahme, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 8 and Mrs. Chaitali KuttiChoudhary, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 5 and 7.

¶12

The present Public interest Litigation was espousing the cause of encroachment over the Government land. On issuance of notice as well in response to the order dated

¶13

2 930-PIL-93-2017

¶14

25^th September, 2019, afdavit in reply is fled on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 through Smt. D.J. Chaure, Sub Divisional Ofcer, Jalgaon.

¶15

It was grievance of the petitioners that the land Gut No. 307 admeasuring fve hectares 83-R situated at village Shahapur, Tal. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon was an open land and was kept reserved as grazing land (gairan land) with an additional purpose of construction of water reservoir/ Shet Tale. The second part of the land is utilized as cremation ground. It was also submitted before this Court that the ofce bearers of the Gram Panchayat, Shahapur, Tal. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon is permitted the part of land to be utilized by some of their relatives for an illegal construction of the houses. It is also submitted before this Court that an impression was created as if these houses are being constructed under the scheme of State Government known as “Gharkul Yojna”. The photographs of the said land, copies of the representations submitted to the authorities are placed on record, annexed to the petition.

¶16

In response to the notice and directions of this Court, the afdavit in reply fled through Smt. D.J. Chaure,

¶17

3 930-PIL-93-2017

¶18

makes reference to certain important statements and we quote and it may be useful for our purposes to refer these statements in Para Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 which are as under :-

¶19

I say and submit that the actual spot inspection of land Gut No. 307 situated at Mauje Shahapur Tah. Jamner Dist. Jalgaon. I have also gone through the various land record available at the various ofces.

¶20

I say and submit that, in the spot inspection it has been found that, there are 5 fully constructed houses and 2 incomplete houses on the disputed land. There is no residential use of 5 houses and other two non residential uses. It has been submitted by the Gramsevak of Village - Shahapur that, the house and construction of it is illegal. The disputed land adjacent to the cremation land and the land is being used as cattle feeding (Gurcharan land). The land is also having an illegal tin shed but it was not traced out as who own or who has built it. There is a Khadakai river and tin shed at the eastern side of the land and towards the west of the land there is a old tannery. There are two water well of village Panchayat on the bank of river and from the west-south corner of the land High tension

¶21

4 930-PIL-93-2017

¶22

electricity lines are passing through.

¶23

I say and submits that, on going through the revenue record from 1952 to till today, of the land Gut No. 307, it is been found that the previously the land was known as Survey No. 86 and it was reserved in the name ßljdkjh iMhr lkoZtfuddkekdMsÞ and later on wide mutation entry no. 1447 it was shown to be reserved for ßxqjpj.khlkBhÞ-

¶24

I say and submit that, upon going though the village Panchayat record, I found that, there was no entry of the Gharkul constructed on at the disputed land. No such entry is found in register no. 8A. During the enquiry, it has been submitted by ofcer bearers of the village Panchayat that, on 31/05/2015, they have submitted a proposal to the Hon’ble District Collector for extension of village limits and permission to add the disputed land in Gavthan. The village Panchayat shown the copy of resolution as well as the order of grant of Gharkul granted by the Chief Executive Ofcer of the Zillha Parishad.

¶25

I say and submit that, the village Panchayat fail to show that they have followed the terms and condition fxed by the Sub Divisional Ofcer during the allotment of the disputed land to the village Panchayat. Further

¶26

5 930-PIL-93-2017

¶27

the village Panchayat also failed to submit any documents about the permission or authorization from the Hon’ble Collector for using the Land Gut No. 307 for the Gharkul or other purpose than specifed in revenue records. Copies of spot inspection report, rough map prepared at spot, checklist of spot inspection, village Panchayat resolution, 7/12 extract of the disputed land since 1952-53 to till date and list of the persons who encroached the land Gut No. 307 are annexed herewith and marked as Exhibit”R-1” collectively.

¶28

The copy of the spot inspection report is also annexed to the afdavit in reply. The copy of spot inspection report conducted in presence of the Talathi, Gram Sevak, Circle Ofcer, Wakdi, Block Development Ofcer, Jamner Panchayat Samittee, Tahsildar, Jamner, Sub Divisional Ofcer, Jalgaon duly signed by them is annexed to the afdavit in reply as Annexure ‘R-1’. Then the copy of 7/12 extract is also placed on record. In the panchanama conducted in presence of the above referred ofcers dated 11.11.2019, the reference was made to fve fully constructed houses and two partially constructed houses with the name of the persons who claim to be the benefciaries. In the concluding part of this list of persons

¶29

6 930-PIL-93-2017

¶30

signed by the Gram Sevak, Shahapur, it is stated that fve houses are complete, one house is partially complete and one house is an encroachment. The afdavit-in-reply also refers to panchnama drawn on that very date i.e. 13.11.2019 showing that there were as many as 46 tin sheds erected and this list refers to the names of those persons under the signature of Gram Sevak, Shahapur.

¶31

Mr Brahme, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 8 – The Village Gram Panchayat, Shahapur made a categorical statement before this Court that though the proposal was submitted by the Gram Panchayat to the Sub Divisional Ofcer for allotment of the land for construction of the houses under the scheme known as “Indira Awas Yojna”, but the proposal was turned down. Thus, the only inescapable conclusion which can be drawn from perusal of this material along with the submission of Mr. Brahme, learned Counsel appearing for the Gram Panchayat, is whatever construction raised in the land Gut No. 307 is an illegal construction. The tin sheds erected on the land are also illegal. There was no authorization or permission from any of the Government authorities either to construct house or to erect the tin sheds. On a specifc

¶32

7 930-PIL-93-2017

¶33

query made to Mr Brahme, learned Counsel as to whether any public money was utilized for construction of these houses, Mr. Brahme categorically replied to this Court that these were constructions carried on by those persons out of their own expenses and no public money was involved in construction. as the Gram Panchayat has not granted any permission either for construction of houses or for erection of tin sheds.

¶34

Once we arrived at a conclusion that this construction and the erection of tin sheds is an illegal act, the natural corollary would be in the result of permitting the authority to take appropriate steps so as to demolish this construction. Accordingly, we direct the Collector to seek a report from the Gram Panchayat, who would be the competent authority to take the exercise of demolition of this construction by following the provisions of Gram Panchayat Act.

¶35

The Collector may fx the stipulation of period while seeking the action taken report from the Gram Panchayat. On receipt of such report submitted to the Collector, the Collector, District Jalgaon is at liberty to take appropriate

¶36

8 930-PIL-93-2017

¶37

decision in case an opinion is formed by the Collector that for the act of encroachment either the ofcers of Gram Panchayat were responsible or the act of encroachment was carried out in connivance with some local ofcers, then the Collector is at liberty to take appropriate action against such erring ofcers including recovery of the amount in case, any amount of public exchequer was utilized for this illegal construction.

¶38

Though we dispose of the petition, we direct the Collector, Jalgaon to submit his action taken report to this Court after eight weeks from the date of order of this Court through the ofce of the Assistant Government Pleader.

¶39

The Public Interest Litigation is accordingly disposed of.

¶40

The authenticated copy be issued to Mr Sangle, the learned Assistant Government Pleader.

¶41

Mr Shinde, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners was fair enough to submit before this Court that to show bona fde the petitioner has deposited an amount of Rs. 10,000/- in this Court and the amount be diverted to

¶42

9 930-PIL-93-2017

¶43

any social cause. Accordingly, we direct the Registry of this Court to divert the amount in the accounts of Child Care Centre initiated in the premises of this Court along with the interest accrued thereon.

¶44

[ ANIL S. KILOR ] [ PRASANNA B. VARALE ] JUDGE JUDGE

¶45

mta

Bhagwan Dagadu Patil and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwan Dagadu Patil and Others 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

Bhagvanji Rayani vs State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Jan Mukti Morcha vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ashok Rupram Pardeshi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Water Supply Dept and Ors.

Hindustani Islamic Magasavargiy Alpasankhyank Shikshan Sanstha Vs the Deducation Officer (Primary) and Ors.

Smt. S.G.P. Barnes Vs the Municipal Commissioner, Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and 9 Ors.

Mrs. S.G.P. Barnes Vs Shri Narendra P. Naik and 8 Ors.

Shri. Mahesh Bajrang Gadekar vs High Court of Judicature of Bombay through Its Registrar General and Ors.

Keshubhai Vestabhai Patel and Anr. Vs the Union of India, through Dept of Home Affairs and Ors.

Syed Ghouse Mohiuddin Saleem through Gpa Mohammed Junaid Mohammed Ali Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kapil Bhimrao Wadmare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Hussain Khan Nasir Khan and Others Vs v K Gautam and Others

Bharat Deochand Dhanawat and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nazra Education Society Bori I, Pusad through Its Secretary Mirza Haji Baig Yasin Baig Vs Vandana Krushna the Secretary and Another

Rahul Rangarao Patil Vs Bapurao Khushan Patil and Others