Quashed

Antop Hill Warehousing Company Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Sept 2021WP/6068/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashes an ex-parte order passed by the Revenue Minister rejecting a jurisdictional objection. It directs the Minister to grant the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before deciding the jurisdictional issue under Section 258 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the ex-parte order dated 25.02.2021 and directed the Hon'ble Minister to consider the jurisdictional objection after granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

Antop Hill Warehousing Company Ltd. Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

50-6068-2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.6068 OF 2021

¶4

Antop Hill Warehousing Company Ltd.,..Petitioner.
v/s.

¶5

State of Maharashtra & Others

¶6

..Respondents.

¶7

Mr. Atul Damle, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Siddhesh Bhole, Krupashree Sawant
and Kshitija Bhosale i/b. SSB Legal & Advisory, for the Petitioner.
Mr. S. H. Kankal, AGP for the Respondent-State.
Mr. Om Suryawanshi, for Respondent No.6-MCGM.

¶8

Digitally signed by SMITA SMITA RAJNIKANT RAJNIKANTJOSHI JOSHIDate:2021.09.30 10:28:03 +0530

¶9

P.C:-

¶10

CORAM: G.S. KULKARNI,J. DATED : 29^th SEPTEMBER, 2021.

¶11

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶12

2The limited issue as raised by the Petitioner in challenging the
impugned order dated 25th February, 2021 passed by the Hon’ble Minister
(Revenue) is to the effect that such order has been passed without
examining the preliminary objection of the Petitioner to the jurisdiction of
the Hon’ble Minister (Revenue) to hear the Review Petition in relation to
an order not passed by the Hon’ble Minister but by the Principal Secretary
in exercising the power of review under Section 258 of the Maharashtra
Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short ‘MLRC ’).

¶13

3The dispute concerns land at Wadala, Mumbai which was
leased out by the State Government in favour of the Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai and thereafter a sub-lease of the same
was granted to the Petitioner. The Collector had issued a show cause
notice to the Petitioners dated 17th August, 2010 and thereafter
subsequent show cause notice dated 2nd January, 2012 came to be issued

¶14

S.R.JOSHI

¶15

1 of 4

¶16

50-6068-2021.doc

¶17

for eviction of the Petitioner from the land in question.

¶18

4The show cause notice was adjudicated by an order dated 20th
September, 2012 passed by the Hon’ble Minister (Revenue). The Hon’ble
Minister’s order was challenged by the Petitioner in a Writ Petition before
this Court (Writ Petition No. 2617 of 2012). The said Petition was
allowed by an order dated 4th August, 2016 passed by the Division Bench
of this Court. The Division Bench restored the proceedings to the file of
the Government and directed the Secretary (Revenue and Forest) to hear
the matter afresh, for an order to be passed in accordance with law.

¶19

5In pursuance of the directions of this Court, the Principal
Secretary (Revenue and Forest) decided the matter afresh by an order
dated 27th August, 2019. Such order passed by the Principal Secretary has
been taken up by the Hon’ble Minister (Revenue) in the review
proceedings in question.

¶20

6The Petitioner has appeared in the review proceedings as also
has filed its reply, raising a preliminary objection to the hearing of the
review proceeding by the Hon’ble Minister (Revenue), as it is the
Petitioner’s contention that the principal order subject matter of the
review proceeding was passed by the Principal Secretary, hence,
according to the Petitioner, the Hon’ble Minister would not have
jurisdiction to exercise powers of review under Section 258 of the MLRC.

¶21

7The grievance of the Petitioner is that by the impugned order
passed by the Hon’ble Minister (Revenue), the Petitioner’s objections on
the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Minister to hear the review petition have
been rejected without granting the Petitioner an opportunity of being
heard on the said issue.

¶22

2 of 4

¶23

S.R.JOSHI

¶24

50-6068-2021.doc

¶25

8Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, in my
opinion, the Petitioner ought to have been granted an opportunity of
being heard on its objections by the Hon’ble Minister and an ex-parte
order as contained in paragraph 1 of the operative order passed by the
Hon’ble Minister ought not to have been passed.

¶26

9It may be observed that the issue as raised by the Petitioner
certainly required an appropriate hearing, as such contention as to the
jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Minister to hear the review proceedings was
categorically raised and incorporated in the Petitioner’s reply to the review
application.

¶27

10It is informed that the Hon’ble Minister (Revenue) has listed
the proceedings for tomorrow i.e. 30th September, 2021 and if the Hon’ble
Minister (Revenue) hears the Petitioner without taking into consideration
the objections as raised by the Petitioner as purportedly rejected by the
impugned order, certainly a prejudice would be caused to the Petitioner.

¶28

11In the above circumstances, in my considered opinion, the
following order would meet the ends of justice:-

¶29

(i) Para 1 of the operative order dated 25^th February, 2021 passed by the Hon’ble Minister stands quashed and set aside;

¶30

(ii) The objections of the Petitioner to the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Minister to hear the review proceedings are restored to the file of the review proceedings. Such objection shall be considered by the Hon’ble Minister by granting an opportunity of a hearing, for appropriate orders to be passed in accordance with law.

¶31

(iii) All contentions of the parries on the merits are expressly kept open.

¶32

3 of 4

¶33

S.R.JOSHI

¶34

50-6068-2021.doc

¶35

12The learned AGP shall orally inform the above directions to
concerned Officers of the State Government.

¶36

13Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to

¶37

costs.

¶38

 (G.S. KULKARNI,J.)

¶39

4 of 4

¶40

S.R.JOSHI

Antop Hill Warehousing Company Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Antop Hill Warehousing Company Ltd. v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Chairman/ Secretary, Narmada Niwas Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs Mr. Vinod Malshi Shah and Ors.

Chairman/ Secretary, Narmada Niwas Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs Mr. Virendra Krishna Singh and Ors.

Seth M. Prasad and Anr. Vs Gautam Shripad Dongre and Ors.

Superintending Agricultural Officer Nashik and Ors. Vs Sham W. Gaikwad and Ors.

Yogini Dilip Khandage Vs the Additional Divisional Commissioner Pune and Ors.

Devasthan Committee - Shinoli and Ors. Vs Radhakrushna Avdhut Tavasvi and Anr.