Bombay High Court
Smt. Shobha W/O Jagdish Sarda vs State Of Maharashtra, Through The ... on 1 July, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 wp720.14.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 720 OF 2014
Smt. Shobha W/o. Jagdish Sarda,
Aged about 48 years, Occu. : Municipal
Councillor & Housewife, Resident of
Anjangaon Surji, District : Amravati.
ig .... PETITIONER.
// VERSUS //
1) State of Maharashtra, Through the
Secretary, Urban Development
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
2) Director of Municipal Administration,
State of Maharashtra, Pune.
2-A) Regional Director of Municipal
Administration, Amravati Division,
Amravati.
3) Divisional Commissioner, Amravati
Division, Amravati.
4) Collector, Amravati District : Amravati.
5) Municipal Council, Anjangaon Surji.
THROUGH :
(1) President, Municipal Council, Anjangaon
Surji, District : Amravati.
(2) Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Anjangaon
Surji, District : Amravati.
::: Uploaded on - 13/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:45:41 :::
Judgment 2 wp720.14.odt
6) Suresh S/o. Dhanrajji Bundele,
Aged about 51 years, Resident of
Anjangaon Surji, District : Amravati.
7) Smt. Kiran W/o. Suryakant Pandhre,
Resident of Anjangaon Surji, District:
Amravati, aged 50 years.
8) Rupesh S/o.Chhotelal Gaur, aged 50 yrs.
Resident of Anjangaon Surji,
District : Amravati
9)
Smt. Savita W/o. Kundan Zade, aged 49 yrs.
Resident of Anjangaon Surji,
District : Amravati.
10) Smt. Manda W/o. Gajanan Deole, aged 48 yrs.
Resident of Anjangaon Surji,
District : Amravati.
11) Aadeshkumar Bobde, aged 50 yrs.
Resident of Anjangaon Surji,
District : Amravati.
.... RESPONDENTS
.
______________________________________________________________
Shri B.N.Mohta, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri D.M.Kale, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
Shri V.S.Mishra, Advocate for Respondent No.5, 5(1) & 5(2).
None for the respondent Nos. 6 to 11.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : JULY 01, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard learned advocate for the petitioner, learned
advocate for the respondent No.5 and learned A.G.P. for the respondent
Nos.1 to 4. None appeared for the other respondents, though served.
Judgment 3 wp720.14.odt
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The respondent No.5-Municipal Council passed resolution
dated 7th January, 2011 regarding deletion of reservation on the land
in question. This resolution was challenged before the Collector under
Section 308 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats
and Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act
of 1965") by the petitioner and four others. The learned Collector, by
the order dated 22nd May, 2012 suspended the operation of the
resolution passed by the Municipal Council. The respondent No.6,
claiming to be the purchaser of the land in question filed revision
application under Section 318 of the Act of 1965 challenging the order
passed by the Collector. The revision is allowed by the impugned order.
4. Though several challenges are raised and submissions on
various points are made by the learned advocates for the respective
parties, in my view, they are not required to be adverted to and the
petition can be disposed of in view of the proposition laid down in the
judgment given by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay
Govind Vs. Collector of Dhule, reported in 2004 (2) Mh.L.J. 874 and the
judgment given by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3911 of 2014 on 23rd
June, 2016.
Judgment 4 wp720.14.odt
In the above referred judgments it is laid down that till the
steps as contemplated by Section 308(2), (3) and (4)of the Act of 1965
are taken, the order passed by the Collector under Section 308 of the
Act of 1965 is only an interlocutory order and does not attain finality.
It is undisputed that the steps as contemplated by Section 308(2), (3)
and (4) of the Act of 1965 are not yet taken.
5. The learned advocate for the petitioner, referring to para
Nos. 41 and 42 of the judgment given in the case of Sanjay Govind
Sapkal has argued that the revision under Section 318 of the Act of
1965 at the behest of the respondent No.6 (private party) was not
maintainable.
Without dealing with the submissions made on behalf of
the petitioner regarding maintainability of the revision filed by the
respondent No.6, the petition is required to be allowed on the ground
that the order passed by the Collector is an interlocutory order and
could not have been the subject matter of challenge in revision under
Section 318 of the Act of 1965.
6. Hence, the following order :
Judgment 5 wp720.14.odt
i) Order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati in
Revenue Case No. 09/MMA/318/Anjangaon-Surji/2011-
12 on 27th October, 2013 is set aside and the revision
application filed by the respondent No.6 is dismissed.
ii) The concerned authorities are at liberty to take further
steps as contemplated by Section 308 (2), (3) and (4) of
the Act of 1965.
Rule made absolute in the above terms. In the
circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
RRaut..
