Dismissed

Krishnagopal S/O Baijnath Gupta v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Ex-Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC7 Jan 2023WP/267/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, exercised its roster powers to deal with a writ petition concerning land allotment disputes. The petitioner challenged an order by the Sub-Divisional Officer allotting land to a third party. The court denied the writ petition, permitting the petitioner to approach the Collector via a statutory appeal under Section 247.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file an appeal before the Collector, Nagpur, under Section 247 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, within three weeks.

Krishnagopal S/O Baijnath Gupta Vs State of Maharashtra Thr… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2023)

Judgment

WP 267-2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 267 OF 2021

¶6

Krishnagopal s/o Baijnath Gupta, aged about 60 years, Occ. Business, R/o Bhiwapur, Tahsil Bhiwapur, District Nagpur.

¶7

PETITIONER

¶8

.....VERSUS..…

¶9

State of Maharashtra, through Ex-Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶10

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Umred, Tahsil – Umred, District – Nagpur.

¶11

The Tahsildar,

¶12

Bhiwapur, Tahsil – Bhiwapur, District – Nagpur.

¶13

Rambhau s/o Pancham Taskar, aged about Major, Occ. Service, R/o Village – Bhiwapur, Tahsil – Bhiwapur, District – Nagpur.

¶14

R ESPONDENTS

¶15

Shri R.S. Akbani, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.A. Madiwale, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 to 3/ State.

¶16

Shri R.D. Hajare, Advocate for respondent No.4 (appointed).

¶17

CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J J . D ATE : JANUARY 7, 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)

¶18

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned

¶19

Counsel for the parties.

¶20

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23/7/2020

¶21

WP 267-2021 2 Judgment

¶22

passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in exercise of power conferred by Section 31 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (for short “the Code”). By that order, Gat No. 155 admeasuring 0.66 square meters has been allotted to respondent No.4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite his application dated 6/10/2015 seeking allotment of the very same plot, it has been allotted to respondent No.4.

¶23

On behalf of the respondents, an objection is raised to the maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground that statutory remedy of filing an appeal against the impugned order is available. Reference is made to Section 247 of the Code.

¶24

We find that the impugned order has been passed by the SubDivisional Officer under Section 31 of the Code. Against that order, remedy of filing an appeal before the Collector is available. Since factual aspects would be required to be adjudicated, we are inclined to permit the petitioner to avail statutory remedy.

¶25

Accordingly, the following order is passed :

¶26

i. The petitioner is permitted to challenge the order dated

¶27

23/7/2020 by filing an appeal before the Collector, Nagpur under Section

¶28

WP 267-2021 3 Judgment

¶29

247 of the Code. If such appeal is preferred within a period of three weeks from today, the same shall be entertained on merits without going into the question of delay. For a period of three weeks, the interim order dated 13/1/2021 protecting the possession of the petitioner shall continue to operate. Thereafter, the Collector is free to consider the prayer for grant of interim relief on its own merits and pass orders after hearing all the parties.

¶30

Keeping the points raised in the Writ Petition open, it is accordingly disposed of. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

¶31

The learned Counsel for respondent No.4 be paid professional fees in accordance with the Rules being appointed by the legal aid Committee.

¶32

( MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J. ) ( A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. )

¶33

SUMIT

¶34

Digitally signed bySUMIT CHETAN AGRAWAL Signing Date:07.01.2023 18:29

Krishnagopal S/O Baijnath Gupta v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Ex-Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnagopal S/O Baijnath Gupta v. State of Maharashtra Thr. Ex-Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mumbai 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

Arun S/O Bapurao Kose Vs the Union of India, Secretary/Defence Production, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and Ors.

Anusuchit Jati Jamati Shikshan Sanstha, Bhandara Thr. President, Bhushan S/O Govind Ramteke Vs State of Maha., Thr. Secy., Dept. of Social Justice and Special and Special Aid Mumbai and Anr.

Nikhil S/O Sudhakar Jichkar and 2 Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso Ps Hudkeshwar, Nagpur and Another

Nitesh Shriram Sonwane Vs the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Nagpur Thr. Its Member Secretary and Others

Savita Fulsing Darkor Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secy. Tribal Development Dept., Mumbai and Others

Pramod Prabhakar Ghotekar and Another Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept. of Education and Sports, Mumbai and Others