Disposed¶33

Mohamadiya Sarkari Karmachari Gruh Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. Ambajogai through Its Chairman v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Bombay HC26 Mar 2024WP/3202/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court Aurangabad; Writ Petition 3202/2024; housing society of Government employees; allotment of Government/Gairan land Survey No.586 Ambajogai; encroachment and regularization refused; writ of mandamus denied invoking Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2011) 11 SCC 396; rejection communications of Collector Beed dated 07.08.2023/08.08.2023 not quashed; petition withdrawn with liberty to seek permissible remedy; bench Ghuge & Joshi JJ; 26.03.2024.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition was disposed of as withdrawn on instruction, with liberty to avail of a remedy, if permissible in law. ¶33

Mohamadiya Sarkari Karmachari Gruh Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. Ambajogai through Its Chairman Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:6967-DB

¶2

3202.24wp

¶3

(1)

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

47 WRIT PETITION NO. 3202 OF 2024

¶6

MOHAMADIYA SARKARI KARMACHARI GRUH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SANSTHA LTD AMBAJOGAI THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN VERSUS

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

¶8

Mr S. P. Salgar, Advocate h/f Mr Nitin V. Gaware Patil, Advocate for Petitioner;

¶9

Mr A. B. Girase, G.P. for Respondents/State

¶10

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND

¶11

R. M. JOSHI, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 26^th March, 2024

¶13

PER COURT:

¶14

The Petitioner claims to be a registered Society.

¶15

Prayer clauses (B), (C), (D), (E) and (F) read as under :-

¶16

“ [B] Quash and set aside the impugned communications dated 07.08.2023 and 08.08.2023 issued by the respondent No.3 Collector, Beed thereby rejecting proposal submitted by the petitioner society for allotment of land from Survey No.586 within the limits of respondent No.6 Municipal Council, Ambajogai being without authority/jurisdiction and is violative of Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India and for that purpose issue necessary orders.

¶17

[C] Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or directions in the nature of writ of mandamus, thereby directing the respondent No.1 State Government to

¶18

3202.24wp

¶19

(2)

¶20

decide the proposal dated 30.11.1994 submitted by the respondent No.2 Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division for allotment of land from Survey No.586 within the limits of respondent No.6 Municipal Council, Ambajogai in favor of the petitioner society and for that purpose issue necessary orders.

¶21

[D] Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, grant stay to the execution, implementation and/or operation of impugned communications dated 07.08.2023 and 08.08.2023 issued by the respondent No.3 Collector, Beed thereby rejecting proposal submitted by the petitioner society for allotment of land from Survey No.586 within the limits of respondent No.6 Municipal Council, Ambajogai and for that purpose issue necessary order.

¶22

[E] Pending hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, thereby restraining the respondent authorities from taking any coercive action in view of the impugned communications dated 07.08.2023 and 08.08.2023 issued by the respondent No.2 Deputy Collector, Beed and for that purpose issue necessary orders.

¶23

[F] Pending hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition, thereby directing the respondent No.1 State Government to decide the proposal dated 30.11.1994 submitted by the respondent No.2 Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division for allotment of land from Survey No.586 within the limits of respondent No.6 Municipal Council, Ambajogai in favor of the petitioner society and for that purpose issue necessary orders.”

¶24

The Petitioner/Society claims that it’s members are the Government employees. The said Society tendered an

¶25

(3)

¶26

3202.24wp

¶27

application dated 10/05/1979 for seeking allotment of land for residential purpose from Survey No.586, which is admittedly Government land. It was registered as a Society on 25/03/1986. The members of the Petitioner/Society concede that they have no right, title and interest in the land. They do not have any allotment letter. They pray for regularization of their occupation of the land and the structure erected. It is further prayed that the State Government be directed by issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to decide the proposal tendered by Respondent No.3/Collector Beed, dated 19/07/1991, which was forwarded by Respondent No.2/Divisional Commissioner, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar to Respondent No.1/ State Government, dated 30/11/1994 with respect to Survey No.586.

¶28

Admittedly, the Petitioners are encroachers on Gairan land. An issue which is 30 years old, is now raised in this Petition. Considering the law laid down in Jagpal Singh & ors. Vs. State of Punjab & ors., (2011) 11 Supreme Court Cases 396, we do not deem it appropriate to issue a Writ of Mandamus.

¶29

The learned Advocate for the Petitioner seeks liberty to withdraw this Writ Petition and avail of a remedy as is permissible in law.

¶30

3202.24wp

¶31

(4)

¶32

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed

¶33

off, as withdrawn on instruction, with liberty to avail of a remedy, if permissible in law.

¶34

(R. M. JOSHI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶35

sjk

¶36

Signed by: Sachin J Kulkarni Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 02/04/2024 11:39:03

Mohamadiya Sarkari Karmachari Gruh Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. Ambajogai through Its Chairman v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohamadiya Sarkari Karmachari Gruh Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Ltd. Ambajogai through Its Chairman v. the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Valha Cooperative Society through Its Director Pralhad Balasaheb Hekade and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others

Baliram Devrao Sargar Vs the State of Maharashtra through the District Collector and Others

The District Collector, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar and Ors. Vs Chhagan Bhika Jadhav

Kachirang Kashinath Mukhedkar Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Authorized Officer Motilal Oswal Home Finance Ltd. through Its Authorised Officer and Anr. Vs Pandharinath Namdeo Dhadge and Ors.

Gajanan Ambadas Tayade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary and Others