Disposed¶29

Ramvilas Singeshwar Ray v. Sub Divisional Officer Cum Managing Officer

Bombay HC20 Jan 2025WP/126/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Evacuee property; conveyance deed execution; Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner; Revision Petition No.52/2020; order dated 16/12/2021; Article 226 mandamus; PWD possession and ownership objection; city survey department report; proceedings closed for hearing on 10 June 2024; delay in passing orders; time-bound direction to Sub Divisional Officer cum Managing Officer, Ulhasnagar; Bombay High Court Writ Petition No. 126 of 2024; contentions kept open; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Time-bound direction to respondent no.1 to pronounce orders on the proceedings closed for hearing on 10 June 2024, within two weeks from presentation of a copy of the order; all contentions on any order that may be passed expressly kept open; no costs. ¶29

Ramvilas Singeshwar Ray vs Sub Divisional Officer… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the respondent to execute the order dated 16/12/2021 passed in Revision Petition No.52/2020 by issuing the Conveyance Deed, in circumstances where proceedings concerning the property (including a PWD possession objection) were closed for hearing but orders remained unpassed for over six months.

¶13

Court's answer

The Court disposed of the writ petition directing respondent no.1 to pronounce orders on the proceedings which were closed for hearing on 10 June 2024, within a period of two weeks from the date on which a copy of the order is presented before him.

¶28

Ratio / Principle

All contentions on any order which may be passed were expressly kept open; the petition was disposed of on those terms with no costs.

¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (G.S. Kulkarni & Advait M. Sethna, JJ.) disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus for execution of the order dated 16/12/2021 passed in Revision Petition No.52/2020 by the Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner, Evacuee Property, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, by issuance of the Conveyance Deed. Relying on the State's reply affidavit (SDO, Ulhasnagar Division) recording a PWD objection on possession/ownership, a hearing on 6th June 2024 with the city survey department summoned, a city survey report of 10th June after which the hearing was closed and the matter kept for Order, and the Court's own observation that despite more than six months no orders had been passed, the Court directed respondent no.1 to pronounce orders on the proceedings closed for hearing on 10 June 2024 within two weeks of presentation of a copy of the order. All contentions on any order that may be passed were expressly kept open; no costs.

¶1

20-WP-126-2024.AS.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 126 OF 2024

¶5

Shri. Ramvilas Singeshwar Ray ...Petitioner Versus Sub Divisional Officer Cum Managing Officer ...Respondent

¶6

Mr. Girish Agrawal a/w Naiana P. Soraste, for the Petitioner. Mr. M.M. Pabale, AGP for Respondent – State.

¶7

Digitally signed by PALLAVI MAHENDRA PALLAVI WARGAONKAR MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR Date: 2025.01.31 19:38:09 +0530

¶8

CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.

¶9

DATE : 20 JANUARY 2025

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

We have heard Mr. Girish Agarwal, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pable, learned AGP for the State.

¶12

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying for the following relief :-

¶13

“(b) Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of mandamus directing the Respondent to issue Conveyance Deed as per order dated 16/12/2021 passed in Revision Petition No.52/2020 by Authorised Chief Settlement Commissioner, Evacuee Property, Maharashtra State, Mumbai within a period of two weeks.”

¶14

Reply affidavit on behalf of the State Government is filed by Mr. Vijayanand Sharma, Sub Divisional Officer, Ulhasnagar Division. The affidavit in paragraphs 2 to 7 in regard to the decision to be taken has makes the following averments:-

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

Pallavi Wargaonkar, PS

¶17

20-WP-126-2024.AS.doc

¶18

“2. I say that Petitioner has filed the petition for execution of order dated 16/12/2021 passed by Authorised chief settlement commissioner in respect of revision petition no 52 of 2020.

¶19

I say and submit that as per the documents available in the office of the Sub Divisional Office, there was an objection filed by the Public works department that the suit property is in their possession and also have relevant documents of possession and ownership.

¶20

I say and submit that just to clarify the objection raised by public works department hearing was conducted on 6^th June 2024 where city survey department was also summoned and city survey department was directed to provide clarification in respect of documents provided by P.W.D department and actual site position of the suit property as well as P.W.D property. Copy of roznama is attached as exhibit A.

¶21

I say and submit that for clarification of actual position of petitioner's suit property and public works department property, Report was filed by city survey department on 10^th June and the hearing was closed and matter kept for Order. Copy of report filed by city survey department is attached as exhibit B.

¶22

I say that the petitioner and P.W.D. Department have submitted their documents at the time of hearing and the same shall be verify and after verification of documents I shall pass appropriate Order and as well as take the appropriate action accordance with law.

¶23

In view of the above facts and circumstances this Hon'ble Court may kindly pass an appropriate order and dispose of the above writ petition.”

¶24

Copy of the said roznama dated 10 June 2020 is annexed which records that on behalf of the petitioner the Advocate was present as also Junior Engineer on behalf of PWD also was present. He had made submissions as also filed written submissions and documents. Further, even the City Survey Officer has submitted documents and was heard and that accordingly the hearing on the proceeding was closed. However, despite almost more than six months having expired no orders have been passed.

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

Pallavi Wargaonkar, PS

¶27

20-WP-126-2024.AS.doc

¶28

In the aforesaid circumstances, we dispose of this petition directing respondent no.1 to pronounce orders on the proceedings which were closed for hearing on 10 June 2024, within a period of two weeks from the date on which copy of this order is presented before him.

¶29

All contentions on any order which may be passed are expressly kept open. Disposed of on the aforesaid terms. No costs.

¶30

[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.]

¶31

[G. S. KULKARNI, J.]

¶32

Page 3 of 3

¶33

Pallavi Wargaonkar, PS

Ramvilas Singeshwar Ray v. Sub Divisional Officer Cum Managing Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramvilas Singeshwar Ray v. Sub Divisional Officer Cum Managing Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prashant Khandu Narawade S/O. Late Khandu Goving Narawade vs Snehal Prashant Narawade @ Snehal Shirish Suryavanshi

Mrs. Reshita Sandip Chakrabarty vs Dr. Sandip Mrinmoy Chakrabarty

Joseph Albert Fernandes and Ors. vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S. Civiltech India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. vs the Nashik Ind. Co-Op. Estate Ltd. through Its Chairman and or S

Vaibhav Arun Harnaskar vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Honorable Minister State Excise Dept and Ors.

Microvision Technologies through Its Proprietor vs the Registrar /Prothonotary and Senior Master High Court ( Original Side) and Ors.