Disposed¶28

Gotum Tatyrao Bhandare and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC19 Mar 2025WP/1196/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

1993 Latur earthquake victims; rehabilitation scheme; Gut No.338 village Kasti (B/Bu), Taluka Lohara, Osmanabad; Collector Latur; encroachment removal notice dated 11/1/2017; representation dated 12/1/2017; no allotment letter; encroacher entitled to due process; Lallu Yashwant Singh v. Rao Jagdish Singh AIR 1968 SC 620; Writ Petition No.1196 of 2017; Bombay High Court Aurangabad; Alok Aradhe CJ; Ravindra V. Ghuge J; rule discharged.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; Rule discharged and petition disposed of with a direction that any action for removal of encroachment be taken strictly in accordance with law, and liberty to apply under State rehabilitation schemes if entitled. ¶28

Gotum Tatyrao Bhandare and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioners, claiming to be victims of the 1993 Latur earthquake, were allotted plots in Gut No.338 of village Kasti (Bu), District Osmanabad, and are entitled to a rehabilitation plan and allotment thereof by the Collector, Latur. +2 more

¶15

Court's answer

The Petitioners' version that the plots of land were allotted to them is not worthy of acceptance, as no copy of any order of allotment was annexed and it was conceded that no such allotment letter was issued.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Since the cause title does not disclose the Petitioners' ages, it cannot be ascertained whether they were victims of the 1993 earthquake; prima facie they have no title to the land in their possession and appear to be encroachers.

¶24

Key takeaways

Law requires that an action even against an encroacher has to be taken in accordance with law, as per the Apex Court decision in Lallu Yashwant Singh v. Rao Jagdish Singh, AIR 1968 SC 620.ratio¶24
Any action for removal of encroachment shall be taken strictly in accordance with law; if the Petitioners are entitled to rehabilitation under any scheme framed by the State Government, it will be open to them to apply for its benefit.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), 19.03.2025 (Alok Aradhe, CJ.; Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.): Writ petition by persons claiming to be victims of the 1993 Latur earthquake seeking a rehabilitation plan and allotment of plots in Gut No.338, village Kasti (Bu), District Osmanabad, a decision on their representation dated 12/1/2017, and quashing of the Collector's letter dated 11/1/2017 for removal of encroachment. Held: no allotment letter was ever issued (conceded), and the petitioners' undisclosed ages prevent ascertainment of their victim status; prima facie they have no title and are encroachers. However, relying on Lallu Yashwant Singh (dead) by his legal representative v. Rao Jagdish Singh & Ors., AIR 1968 SC 620, action even against an encroacher must be taken strictly in accordance with law; petitioners may apply under any State rehabilitation scheme if eligible. Petition disposed of; Rule discharged.

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:8189-DB

¶2

Writ Petition No.1196/2017

¶3

:: 1 ::

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1196 OF 2017

¶6

Gotum s/o Tatyrao Bhandare & Others. … PETITIONERS

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Others … RESPONDENTS

¶9

Mr. G.J. Kore, Advocate for Petitioners Mr. M.K. Goyanka, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 3

¶10

CORAM: ALOK ARADHE, CJ. & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

¶11

DATE: 19th MARCH, 2025.

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : CHIEF JUSTICE) :

¶13

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By

¶14

consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the Writ Petition is heard finally.

¶15

In this Writ Petition, the Petitioners inter-alia seek a direction to the Collector, Latur to make a plan for rehabilitation of the Petitioners on plots in Gut No.338 of village Kasti (Bu), District Osmanabad. The petitioners also seek direction to the Collector to allot the aforesaid plot to

¶16

Writ Petition No.1196/2017

¶17

:: 2 ::

¶18

the Petitioners. The Petitioners, in addition, seek a direction to the Collector to decide the representation dated 12/1/2017 and seek quashment of the letter dated 11/1/2017, issued by the Collector for removal of the encroachment.

¶19

Facts giving rise to the filing of the Writ Petition, briefly stated, are that, the Petitioners are residents of village Kasti (B), Taluka Lohara, District Osmanabad and claim to be victims of the 1993 earthquake, which hit the Latur district. According to the Petitioners, the land Gut No.338 of village Kasti (B), was allotted to the Petitioners. However, by the impugned notice dated 11/1/2017, the Petitioners are asked to hand over the possession of the plot in their possession. In the aforesaid background, the Petitioners have approached this Court.

¶20

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length. In support of their claim that the land in question was allotted to them, the Petitioners have not annexed the copy of the order of allotment. It is conceded that no such allotment letter was issued. Therefore, the version of the

¶21

Writ Petition No.1196/2017

¶22

:: 3 ::

¶23

Petitioners that the plots of land were allotted to them is not worthy of acceptance.

¶24

It is pertinent to note that, in the cause title, the Petitioners have not disclosed their age. Therefore, it cannot be ascertained whether the Petitioners were the persons who were victims of the earthquake in 1993. Prima facie, the Petitioners do not have any title in respect of the land in possession and they seem to be encroachers. However, law requires that, an action even against an encroacher, has to be taken in accordance with law, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in case of Lallu Yashwant Singh (dead) by his legal representative v. Rao Jagdish Singh & Ors., AIR 1968 SC 620.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that any action for removal of encroachment shall be taken strictly in accordance with law. Needless to state that, in case the Petitioners are entitled to rehabilitation under any of the schemes framed by the State Government, it will be open for them to apply for the benefit of such rehabilitation scheme

¶26

Writ Petition No.1196/2017

¶27

:: 4 ::

¶28

which has been framed by the State Government. Accordingly, the Petition is disposed off. Rule discharged.

¶29

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶30

FMPathan/-

Gotum Tatyrao Bhandare and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gotum Tatyrao Bhandare and Others v. the State of Maharashtra 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

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mitra Sadhana Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Kamlakar Bankatrao Gokhane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Balasaheb Bhanudas Ghodke and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Raju Pandharinath Kendre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Jivan Shankarrao Kurutadikar Vs Marathwada Agriculture University Parbhnai and Ors.

Sidram Ramdas Darnulwar Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Ministry of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj and Others