Dattatray Rangnath Bhujbal vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. Govt Pleader and Ors.

Learned counsel for the parties submit that a common judgment and order can dispose of these petitions because the issues of facts and law raised therein are common and similar. They request that Writ Petition No. 17931 of 2024 be treated as the lead matter.

¶66

The petitioner claims to own the lands described in paragraph 3 of the lead petition. In the mutation records i.e. 7/12 extracts, there is a remark shown in the other rights column “reserved for the purpose of benefited zone for the Gunjavani project”.

¶67

The petitioner complains that because of this entry in the survey records, the petitioner is facing considerable difficulties enjoying the subject land. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no acquisition proceedings were initiated. In these circumstances, making the above entry and continuing it indefinitely amount to arbitrariness and interference with the petitioner’s rights without the authority of law.

¶68

Learned counsel for the petitioner has enclosed several decisions and orders made by this Court from pages 83 to 216 of this petition showing how this Court, in similar circumstances, has granted relief and directed the deletion of such entries. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a similar order may be passed in the present petition as well.

¶69

Mr. Pawar, while not disputing the applicability of several orders made by this court in similar circumstances, submits that the petitioner should have approached the mutation authorities and pointed out the decisions of this Court and only if mutation authorities did not make deletions, approach this Court.

¶70

ppn 5 913.wp-17931.24 & ors.docx

¶71

In gross facts of the present case, we refuse to uphold the objections on behalf of the State requiring the petitioner to approach the mutation authorities.

¶72

The petitioner's case is covered by several decisions rendered by this Court in similar circumstances.

¶73

In particular, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to this Court’s order dated 19 September 2024, disposing of Writ Petition No. 1181 of 2024 and connected petitions. The operative portion of this order in paragraph 9 reads as under: -

¶74

“i. The respondents are directed to take appropriate action within a period of 10 weeks from today to delete the entries of reservation of the petitioners' lands for the concerned project as reflected in the revenue record, in respect of each of the petitioners' lands of the description as made in the prayers of each of these Writ Petitions.

¶75

ii. The compliance of this be forwarded to the petitioners by a letter to be addressed by the Competent Authority.

¶76

iii. We observe that we have not examined any other contentions of the parties except what has been observed hereinabove.

¶77

iv. We also keep open all rights and contentions of the State Government, in the event any of these lands are required for any public purpose, in such event the lands be acquired in accordance with law.”

¶78

Accordingly, we dispose of all these petitions by adopting the reasoning in several orders enclosed with this petition, including the order dated 19 September 2024, which disposes of Writ Petition No. 1181 of 2024 and connected petitions. All these petitions are disposed of by issuing the following directions: -

¶79

(i) The respondents are directed to take appropriate action within 10 weeks from today to delete the entries of reservation of the petitioners' lands for the concerned project as reflected in the revenue record, in respect of each of the petitioners' lands of the description as made in the prayers of each of these Writ Petitions.

¶80

ppn 6 913.wp-17931.24 & ors.docx

¶81

(ii) Compliance with this will be forwarded to the petitioners by a letter addressed by the Competent Authority.

¶82

(iii) We observe that we have not examined any other contentions of the parties except what has been observed hereinabove.

¶83

(iv) We also keep open all rights and contentions of the State Government in the event any of these lands are required for any public purpose; in such event, the lands be acquired in accordance with the law.

¶84

The Rule is made absolute in the above terms without any order for costs.

¶85

All concerned must act on an authenticated copy of this order.

¶86

(Jitendra Jain, J .)

Dattatray Rangnath Bhujbal v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. Govt Pleader and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dattatray Rangnath Bhujbal v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. Govt Pleader and Ors.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Commissioner of Customs Nh III vs Gulab Fibres

Commissioner of Customs Nh III vs Unitech Inc.

Commissioner of Customs Ns III vs Goyal Trading

Ravi Badrinarain Goyal vs Deputy / Assistant Commissioner Income Tax 22(1)

M/S. Swami Samarth Auto Centre through Its Proprietor Anand D. Sadul vs the State of Maharashtra

Viresh Gangaram Joshi vs Securities and Exchange Board of India