Allowed

Kishor Vishwas Patil and Another through Gpa Yogesh Aatmaram Bagad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC7 Jan 2021WP/5584/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order staying regularization of land encroachment. The Court quashed the stay order to the extent it affected the petitioners who were not the subject of the review petition that triggered the stay.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order staying regularization of encroachment to the extent of the petitioners' claim is quashed and set aside.

Kishor Vishwas Patil and Another through Gpa Yogesh Aatmaram… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

926 pw 5584 20.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 5584 OF 2020

¶4

1) Kishor Vishwas Patil, R/o. Dangune, Tq. Sindkheda, District Dhule.

¶5

2)Jitendra Vishwan Patil,
R/o. Dangune, Tq. Sindkheda,
Dist. Dhule,
Through : their power of Attorney
Holder :

¶6

Shri. Yogesh Aatmaram Bagad,
Age 42 years, Occ. Agri/Business.
R/o. Gut No. 6, Dhule, Tq.
& Dist. Dhule.

¶7

VERSUS.

¶8

1) The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya Mumbai – 32.

¶9

2) Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik.

¶10

3) The Collector, Dhule, Tq. & Dist. Dhule.

¶11

4) Tahsildar, Shindkheda, Tq. Sindkheda, Dist. Dhule.

¶12

5) Circle Officer, Shindkheda, Tq. Sindkheda, Dist. Dhule.

¶13

6) Talathi, Shindkheda, Tq. Sindkheda, Dist. Dhule.

¶14

7) Ravindra Subhash Patil, Age Major, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Betavad, Tq. Sindkheda, Dist. Dhule.

¶15

8) Prashant Chandrakant Patil, Age Major, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Plot No. 6, Oswal Nagar, Vidyanagari, near Satpuda

¶16

1/3

¶17

926 pw 5584 20.odt

¶18

High School, Deopur, Tq. &
Dist. Dhule.

¶19

9)Subhash Nathu Koli,
Age Major, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o. Near Vitthal Temple,
Betavad, Tq. Sindkheda,
Dist. Dhule.…Respondents.

¶20

…
Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. Bagul D.S.
A.G.P. for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 : Mrs. D.S. Jape.
Advocate for the Respondents No. 7 & 8 : Mr. Desale.
Advocate for the Respondent No. 9 : Mr. Manish V. Bhamre. (absent)

¶21

CORAM: MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE:07.01.2021.

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶23

Heard. Rule. The Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
both the sides the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.

¶24

2.The order rejecting regularization of an encroachment under Section 49
read with Section 51 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 passed by the
concerned Tahsildar was impugned. The learned Minister while entertaining the
revision under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 by the
order dated 18.06.2019 quashed and set side the order of the Tahsildar and that of
the Commissioner and allowed the request regarding regularization of the
encroachment.

¶25

3.By the impugned order, the execution and operation of the earlier order
dated 18.06.2019 passed by the predecessor of the sitting Minister has been
stayed. Hence this petition.

¶26

4.After having heard both the sides it appears that it is a matter of some error
or mistake arising out of the fact that it is not only the petitioners but one more
person who is the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6560/2020 had filed a joint
revision under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code before the
State Government. Apparently they were seeking regularization of their individual
encroachment on the lands situated in two different villages.

¶27

2/3

¶28

926 pw 5584 20.odt

¶29

5. As is stated herein above the order dated 18.06.2019 had the effect of allowing both the proceedings, one initiated by the present petitioners and the other by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 6560/2020.

¶30

6.It also appears that the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 herein applied for review
under Section 258 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and by the impugned
order, without adverting to the specific allegations of the respondent Nos. 8 and 9
questioning regularization of encroachment by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.
6560/2020 alone, the learned Minister has stayed the operation of the entire order
dated 18.06.2019, which has the consequence of staying the order of
regularization qua the present petitioners as well albeit the respondent Nos. 8 and
9 were not questioning regularization of the encroachment made by the present
petitioners. It also can be discerned from the Review Petition filed by the
respondent Nos. 8 and 9 before the Minister. Same thing has been reiterated by
them in their affidavit in reply filed in this petition.

¶31

7. It is under these circumstances, the impugned order to the extent it has the effect of staying the operation of the order dated 18.06.2019 to the extent of the petitioners deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶32

8. The Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned order to the extent of the petitioners’ claim regarding regularization of encroachment to the extent of 2- Hectre from land Gat No. 13 of village Dangune Tq. Shindkheda, Dist. Dhule, is quashed and set aside.

¶33

9. The Rule is made absolute accordingly.

¶34

 (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)

¶35

mkd/-

¶36

3/3

Kishor Vishwas Patil and Another through Gpa Yogesh Aatmaram Bagad v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishor Vishwas Patil and Another through Gpa Yogesh Aatmaram Bagad 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shripad Shankar Chindam Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Haribhau Narayanrao Nandkhedkar through Lrs Suvarna Haribhau Nandedkar and Others Vs Sandeep Balasaheb Walke and Others

Sudhakar Narayan Kamble Vs the Joint Charity Commissioner and Others

Kamalbai Sandipan Bhairat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Priyanka Santosh Gadekar Vs Sindhubai Navnath Choudhary and Others

Sayyed Hakim Sayyed Imam Died through Lrs Akhtarbee and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others