Bombay High Court
Bhiva Rama Pardole And Ors. vs Collector And Deputy Director For ... on 22 June, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2005 (2) BomCR 413
Author: P V.G.
Bench: P V.G., K V.
JUDGMENT
Palshikar V.G., J.
1. By this petition, the petitioner has questioned the correctness of the order dated 29-9-2000 passed by the Minister, which according to the petitioner, is without jurisdiction and therefore liable to be quashed.
2. The Government acquired certain lands in Kolhapur District for rehabilitation of project affected persons and that acquisition included some land belonging to respondent No. 5 Smt. Rukmini Pandurang Sankpal. The acquisition proceedings were completed and possession of the land acquired was taken over by the State and the land so acquired was distributed to project affected persons. This aspect is specifically admitted by the respondent-State in its affidavit in reply, which is as follows :
"With reference to paragraphs Nos. 2 and 3, I state that the land in the Gat No. 485 admeasuring 1-62-00 hectre was taken in possession on 12-4-1988 and the said land was distributed to the 4 project affected persons, viz. Laxman Rama Tambe, Bhiva Rama Pardole the present petitioner, Shankar G. Potdar and Krishna Jyoti Mhalungekar."
3. Therefore from 12-4-1988 the petitioner is in possession of the land from out of Survey No. 485 as distributed to him along with three other project affected persons.
4. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is still in possession and cannot be deprived of his possession without due process of law. He therefore assailed the order Exh. C dated 29-9-2000 as the one made without jurisdiction.
5. A careful consideration of the impugned order will show that it is by way of communicating to respondent No. 5 the order of the Minister by which her request for dropping certain land as reserved for industrial area was accepted and accordingly Regional Commissioner, Pune and Collector, Kolhapur were advised by the same letter of her to take appropriate action in that regard. The reply of the State in para 6 reads as under :
"I state that the contents of the petitioner in para 7 are not correct. The order dated 29-9-2000 (Impugned order) is not implemented by the Collector till today."
The reply then says that:
"After considering all aspects related to the case, the Government has rejected her request of deletion of the land from the Gat No. 424, The Commissioner then reported to the State in relation to land held by respondent No. 5 and the lacuna in the order of 29-9-2000 was brought to the notice of the State. Therefore the State Government ordered as under: "As this lacuna was brought to the notice of the Government, the Government in this Department rectified its own decision by the letter No. RPA-3299/CR-223/R-4 dated 29-9-2000 deleting the dais area 3.38 hectars of Gat No. 485 from the total holding of Smt. Sakpal and instead of that ordered 1.21 hectars of land from Gat No. 467 of Smt. Sakpal for rehabilitation of the project affected persons. The project affected persons from the Gat No. 485 will be given another cultivable lands of their choice from the landpool or from the Gat No. 467 which is also cultivable land."
6. In this view of the matter, there is no reason to interfere with the order dated 29-9-2000. As will be seen from the reply of the Government it is obvious that the State is not going to dispossess the petitioner and the maximum that can be done is that the land can be allotted to the petitioner for which the Government has to follow due process of law. Therefore there is no reason for interference at this stage. We make it clear that any order adverse to the petitioner be made hereafter, the petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge the same in appropriate forum. The petition is accordingly disposed off.
7. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.
