Disposed

Dilip Honaji Rote and Others v. Union of India through Secretary and Anotherand Others

Bombay HC9 Jun 2023WP/5845/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In these five writ petitions, petitioners sought to stay coercive removal of encroachment pending forest land regularization proposals. The High Court disposed of the matters expeditiously directing authorities to conclude the proposals under the 2006 Act within 120 days and stay coercive action.

What did the court decide?

Authorities directed to complete pending regularization proposals within 120 days; coercive action against petitioners stayed for 120 days.

Dilip Honaji Rote and Others Vs Union of India through… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

946 WRIT PETITION NO.5370 OF 2023

¶4

GAYABAI LAXMAN INGALE AND OTHERS

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS WITH

¶7

947 WRIT PETITION NO.5371 OF 2023

¶8

DADEVALI PRAKASH BHOSALE AND OTHERS

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS WITH

¶11

948 WRIT PETITION NO.5372 OF 2023

¶12

MAMARAJ SHANKAR BHOSALE AND OTHERS VERSUS

¶13

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶14

WITH

¶15

949 WRIT PETITION NO.5373 OF 2023

¶16

SAHDEV NINA BHATKAR AND OTHERS

¶17

VERSUS

¶18

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS WITH

¶19

954 WRIT PETITION NO.5845 OF 2023

¶20

DILIP HONAJI ROTE AND OTHERS

¶21

VERSUS

¶22

UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY AND ANOTHER AND OTHERS

¶23

Mr.V.Y.Patil, Advocate for the Petitioners.

¶24

Mr.S.K.Tambe, Mr.S.B.Yawalkar, Mr.S.G.Karlekar, Mr.S.W.Munde, AGP for the Respondent/State.

¶25

Mr.S.W.Munde, Standing Counsel for the Respondent/Union of India in WP No.5372/2023.

¶26

Ms.Nikita Gore, Standing Counsel for the Respondent/Union of India in

khs/June 2023/5370

WP No.5370/2023.

Mr.B.M.Dhanure, Standing Counsel for the Respondent/Union of India in WP No.5845/2023.

¶31

DATE : JUNE 9, 2023

¶32

PER COURT :

¶33

In all these matters, the petitioners have put forth identical

¶34

prayers. Prayer clauses B, C and D in WP No.5370/2023 read as under :-

¶35

"B. To issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction in the like nature to decide the proposal pending with respondent No.3, of the petitioners in respect of regularization of the agricultural forest land to the petitioners.

¶36

C. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions in the like nature, to restrain the respondent Nos. 4 to 11 for not to take coercive action for removal of encroachment made by the petitioners and further direct to the respondents to consider and take a decision for regularization of the agricultural land over the forest land in view of the GR dated 27.12.78, 20.12.95 and GR dated 11.11.2016, 28.11.2022 and the policy of the Government.

¶37

D. Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, to restrain the respondent No./4 to 11 for not to take coercive action for removal of encroachment made by the Petitioners and further direct to the

¶38

khs/June 2023/5370

¶39

- 3 -

¶40

Respondents to consider and take a decision for regularization of the agricultural land over the forest land in view of the GR dated 27.12.78, 20.12.95 and GR dated 11.11.2016, 28.11.2022 and the policy of the Government may kindly be stayed."

¶41

The petitioners contend that in view of the Government Resolutions dated 27.12.1978, 11.11.2016 and 28.11.2022, with regard to regularization made on Government waste lands, Gairan lands and forest lands, action in the nature of removal of the encroachment made by these Petitioners, cannot be resorted to. Reliance is placed upon

¶42

Section 4 and 5 of the Scheduled Tribes and other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 and it is contended that the proposals pending under this Act with the Sub Divisional Officer, Bhusawal with regard to all these Petitioners, needs to be considered in the light of the 2006 Act. Their earlier proposals submitted in 2018, have been lost as per the remarks of the S.D.O. Bhusawal vide communication dated 19.09.2018. Hence new proposals have been tendered.

¶43

Considering the above and since the proposals are said to

¶44

be pending, we do not find it appropriate to keep these petitions

¶45

khs/June 2023/5370

¶46

¶47

pending as the proposals of the Petitioners are yet to be taken to a logical end in terms of the provisions of the 2000 Act. All these petitions are, therefore, disposed off .

¶48

Let the competent authorities consider the pending proposals of the petitioners by following the due procedure laid down in Law and in terms of the Government Resolutions applicable and the provisions of the 2006 Act. If the Act provides for a personal hearing to these petitioners at a particular stage of hearing in the matter, the said provisions shall be scrupulously followed. Let this exercise be completed within a period of 120 days from today. Taking into account the provisions of the 2006 Act, we are protecting the Petitioners against coercive action, if initiated without following the due process of Law, for a period of 120 days.

¶49

The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that the Various authorities, by relying upon Section 26 of the Indian Forests Act 1927, have resorted to coercive steps and bullocks, bullock carts or agricultural equipments used for agricultural activities, are being seized/ confiscated. If this is so, we permit these Petitioners to make

¶50

khs/June 2023/5370

¶51

an appropriate application for the release of such livestock/agricultural equipments etc. before the appropriate authority. If such an application is tendered within 15 days, the same would be decided within 15 days thereafter.

¶52

( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE,, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶53

khs/June 2023/5370

Dilip Honaji Rote and Others v. Union of India through Secretary and Anotherand Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Honaji Rote and Others v. Union of India through Secretary and Anotherand 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

Shaikh Umar Shaikh Chand Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary and Others

Avinash Chandrakant Bahiwal and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others

Subhash Tatyarao Lohar Vs the State of Maharashtra through He Principle Secretary

The Bank of Baroda Thr the Authorised Officer Vs the District Collector Ahmednagar

Shree Sai Baba Sansthan Trust Shirdi through Its Chief Executive Officer Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary

Shri Saibaba Sansthan Shirdi through Its Chief Executive Officer Rahul Dashrath Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary