Bombay High Court
Baba S/O. Sharavan Dahake vs State Of Maha. Thr. The Collector ... on 19 July, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1/15 1907WP1889.16+12-Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1889 OF 2016
PETITIONERS:- Manik s/o Rajaram Thakre (Dead)
1) Ramkrishna s/o Manik Thakre, Aged:65
years, Occu.: Agriculturist,
2) Moreshwar s/o Manik Thakre, Aged:55
years, Occu.: Agriculturist,
ig 3) Sulka Bai wd/o Manik Thakre, Aged:75
years, Occu.: Agriculturist,
All R/o Sonarwahi, Post: Sirsi, Tah.Kuhi,
Distt. Nagpur.
4) Zamo Bai Alias Panchfula w/o Namdeorao
Mahelle & D/o Manikrao Thakre, Aged: 45
years, Occ.: Agriculturist, R/o At Muhi, Post
Tigaon, Tah. Pandhurna, District Chindwada
(M.P.)
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) State of Maharashtra, Through The
Collector, Nagpur.
2) The Deputy Collector, Nagpur.
Both R/o Collectorate, Nagpur.
3) The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.2,
Vidharbha Patbandhare Mahamandal,
Collectorate, Nagpur.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1890 OF 2016
PETITIONER:- Shalik s/o Sharavan Dahake, Aged: 55 years,
Occu.: Agriculturist, R/o Sonarwahi, Post:
Sirsi, Tah.Kuhi, Distt. Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:55:49 :::
2/15 1907WP1889.16+12-Judgment
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) State of Maharashtra, Through The
Collector, Nagpur.
2) The Deputy Collector, Nagpur.
Both R/o Collectorate, Nagpur.
3) The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.2,
Vidharbha Patbandhare Mahamandal,
Collectorate, Nagpur.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1891 OF 2016
PETITIONER:- Anandrao s/o Sharavan Dahake, Aged:70
years, Occu.: Agriculturist, R/o Sonarwahi,
Post: Sirsi, Tah.Kuhi, Distt. Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) State of Maharashtra, Through The
Collector, Nagpur.
2) The Deputy Collector, Nagpur.
Both R/o Collectorate, Nagpur.
3) The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.2,
Vidharbha Patbandhare Mahamandal,
Collectorate, Nagpur.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1892 OF 2016
PETITIONER:- Waman s/o Narayan Dahake, Aged:55 years,
Occu.: Agriculturist, R/o Sonarwahi, Post:
Sirsi, Tah.Kuhi, Distt. Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) State of Maharashtra, Through The
Collector, Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:55:49 :::
3/15 1907WP1889.16+12-Judgment
2) The Deputy Collector, Nagpur.
Both R/o Collectorate, Nagpur.
3) The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.2,
Vidharbha Patbandhare Mahamandal,
Collectorate, Nagpur.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1893 OF 2016
PETITIONER:- Rama s/o Sharavan Dahake, Aged:47 years,
Occu.: Agriculturist, R/o Sonarwahi, Post:
Sirsi, Tah.Kuhi, Distt. Nagpur.
ig ...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) State of Maharashtra, Through The
Collector, Nagpur.
2) The Deputy Collector, Nagpur.
Both R/o Collectorate, Nagpur.
3) The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.2,
Vidharbha Patbandhare Mahamandal,
Collectorate, Nagpur.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1894 OF 2016
PETITIONER:- Manik s/o Narayan Dahake, Aged:65 years,
Occu.: Agriculturist, R/o Sonarwahi, Post:
Sirsi, Tah.Kuhi, Distt. Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) State of Maharashtra, Through The
Collector, Nagpur.
2) The Deputy Collector, Nagpur.
Both R/o Collectorate, Nagpur.
3) The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.2,
Vidharbha Patbandhare Mahamandal,
Collectorate, Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:55:49 :::
4/15 1907WP1889.16+12-Judgment
WRIT PETITION NO. 1895 OF 2016
PETITIONERS:- Gopichand s/o Jumma Badge (Dead)
Through Legal Heirs.
1) Prahalad s/o Gopichand Badge (Dead),
Through Legal heirs.
a) Vatchala Wd/o Prahalad Badge,
Aged:55 years, Occu.: Agriculturist,
b) Shalu W/o Arvind Khandekar, Aged: 35
years, Occu: Agriculturist,
c) Mangesh S/o Prahalad Badge, Aged: 32
ig years, Occu: Agriculturist,
d) Tathagat S/o Prahlad Badge, Aged: 26
Years, Occu: Agriculturist,
e) Jaishri W/o Dinesh Indurkar, Aged: 24
years, Occu: Agriculturist,
2) Sudam S/o Gopichand Badge, Aged: 53
years, Occu: Agriculturist,
3) Dalit S/o Gopichand Badge, Aged: 49
years, Occu: Agriculturist,
All 1(a) to (e), 2, 3 are
R/o Sonarwahi, Post: Sirsi, Tah.Kuhi,
Distt. Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) State of Maharashtra, Through The
Collector, Nagpur.
2) The Deputy Collector, Nagpur.
Both R/o Collectorate, Nagpur.
3) The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.2,
Vidharbha Patbandhare Mahamandal,
Collectorate, Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:55:49 :::
5/15 1907WP1889.16+12-Judgment
WRIT PETITION NO. 1896 OF 2016
PETITIONER:- Dada s/o Narayan Dahake, Aged:45 years,
Occu.: Agriculturist, R/o Sonarwahi, Post:
Sirsi, Tah.Kuhi, Distt. Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) State of Maharashtra, Through The
Collector, Nagpur.
2) The Deputy Collector, Nagpur.
Both R/o Collectorate, Nagpur.
ig 3) The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.2,
Vidharbha Patbandhare Mahamandal,
Collectorate, Nagpur.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1897 OF 2016
PETITIONER:- Bala s/o Sharavan Dahake, Aged:58 years,
Occu.: Agriculturist, R/o Sonarwahi, Post:
Sirsi, Tah.Kuhi, Distt. Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) State of Maharashtra, Through The
Collector, Nagpur.
2) The Deputy Collector, Nagpur.
Both R/o Collectorate, Nagpur.
3) The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.2,
Vidharbha Patbandhare Mahamandal,
Collectorate, Nagpur.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1898 OF 2016
PETITIONER:- Kisan s/o Sharavan Dahake, Aged:60 years,
Occu.: Agriculturist, R/o Sonarwahi, Post:
Sirsi, Tah.Kuhi, Distt. Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:55:49 :::
6/15 1907WP1889.16+12-Judgment
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) State of Maharashtra, Through The
Collector, Nagpur.
2) The Deputy Collector, Nagpur.
Both R/o Collectorate, Nagpur.
3) The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.2,
Vidharbha Patbandhare Mahamandal,
Collectorate, Nagpur.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1899 OF 2016
PETITIONER:- Karu s/o Sharavan Dahake, Aged:65 years,
Occu.: Agriculturist, R/o Sonarwahi, Post:
Sirsi, Tah.Kuhi, Distt. Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) State of Maharashtra, Through The
Collector, Nagpur.
2) The Deputy Collector, Nagpur.
Both R/o Collectorate, Nagpur.
3) The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.2,
Vidharbha Patbandhare Mahamandal,
Collectorate, Nagpur.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1900 OF 2016
PETITIONER:- Ishwar s/o Jumma Badge, Aged:65 years,
Occu.: Agriculturist, R/o Sonarwahi, Post:
Sirsi, Tah.Kuhi, Distt. Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) State of Maharashtra, Through The
Collector, Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 25/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 09:55:49 :::
7/15 1907WP1889.16+12-Judgment
2) The Deputy Collector, Nagpur.
Both R/o Collectorate, Nagpur.
3) The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.2,
Vidharbha Patbandhare Mahamandal,
Collectorate, Nagpur.
WRIT PETITION NO. 1901 OF 2016
PETITIONERS:- 1) Smt. Sunita W/o Damodhar Shiwankar,
Aged:42 years, Occu.: Agriculturist, R/o
Sonarwahi, Post: Sirsi, Tah.Kuhi, Distt.
Nagpur.
ig 2) Devangna Alias Deola W/o Raja Malode,
Aged: 40 years, Occu: Agriculturist, R/o
Sonarwahi, Post: Sirsi, Tah.Kuhi, Distt.
Nagpur.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS :- 1) State of Maharashtra, Through The
Collector, Nagpur.
2) The Deputy Collector, Nagpur.
Both R/o Collectorate, Nagpur.
3) The Special Land Acquisition Officer No.2,
Vidharbha Patbandhare Mahamandal,
Collectorate, Nagpur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A.H.Jamal, counsel for the petitioners.
Mrs. Bharti Dangre, Govt. Pleader for the respondents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 19.07.2016
8/15 1907WP1889.16+12-Judgment
O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A. Naik, J.)
Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is identical
and since almost identical orders passed against the petitioners are
challenged therein, they are heard together and are decided by this
common judgment.
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are
heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned
counsel for the parties.
2) The petitioners were the agricultural land holders of
Sonarwahi in District Nagpur. The land of the petitioners was acquired
by the State of Maharashtra for Gosikhurd Project. The Award was
passed on 29/01/2001. Though the land of the petitioners was acquired
in the year 2001, the petitioners were not rehabilitated and land/plots
were not alloted to them for rehabilitation, till the petitioners were
rehabilitated at Marodi by the order, dated 30/04/2015. The petitioners
were put in actual possession of the plots at Marodi. By the impugned
communication, dated 09/06/2015, the respondents cancelled the
allotment of the land to the petitioners at Marodi. The said order is
impugned by the petitioners in the instant petition.
9/15 1907WP1889.16+12-Judgment
3) Shri A. H. Jamal, the learned counsel for the petitioners,
submitted that though the land of the petitioners was acquired in the
year 2001 for Gosikhurd Project, the petitioners were not rehabilitated
for a period of nearly fifteen years. It is stated that the respondents had
decided to rehabilitate the petitioners at Bothali, but the petitioners
were not ready to accept the plots at Bothali, as it was inconvenient for
the petitioners to reside at Bothali. It is stated that the petitioners had
sought for their relocation at some other appropriate place and the
request of the petitioners was accepted and in April, 2015, the
petitioners were alloted plots at Marodi and were also put in actual
possession of the plots. It is stated that only on the dictates of the
Hon'ble Guardian Minister of Nagpur, the allotment made in favour of
the petitioners was cancelled by the impugned communication, dated
09/06/2015. It is stated that the impugned communication, dated
09/06/2015 recites that the Hon'ble Guardian Minister of Nagpur had
directed the respondent-Authority, namely the Deputy Collector to
cancel the allotment of plots in favour of the petitioners at Marodi and
report compliance. It is stated that the impugned communication issued
by the Deputy Collector, Gosikhurd, Nagpur to the Tahsildar, Kuhi,
dated 09/06/2015 substantiates the fact that the allotment in favour of
the petitioners was cancelled only on the dictates of the Hon'ble
Guardian Minister of Nagpur.
10/15 1907WP1889.16+12-Judgment
4) Mrs. Bharti Dangre, the learned Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondents, has supported the action on the
part of the respondent-Deputy Collector, Nagpur in cancelling the
allotment of plots in favour of the petitioners by the communication/
order dated 09/06/2015. It is stated that the petitioners were earlier
sought to be shifted at Weltur and then at Bothali near the rice mill. It
is stated that the allotment of plots at Bothali was not acceptable to the
petitioners and a decision to allot the plots to the petitioners at Marodi
was taken. It is stated that it is not disputed that the petitioners were
alloted the plots at Marodi on 30/04/2015 and were also put in
possession of the same. The learned Government Pleader stated that the
action of cancellation of the allotment of plots was not at the behest of
the Hon'ble Guardian Minister of Nagpur. It is stated that certain
villagers from Kharada also wanted their rehabilitation at Marodi and
they had threatened to go on hunger strike. It is stated that the
Sarpanch of Kharada had given a representation to the Tahsildar, Kuhi
on 27/05/2015 asking for the cancellation of the plots in favour of the
petitioners or else the project affected persons from Kharada would go
on hunger strike. It is stated that after this, the Police Station Officer at
Weltur wrote to the Tahsil Magistrate, Tahsil Karyalaya, Kuhi that
appropriate action may be taken in the matter, as the Hon'ble Guardian
Minister of Nagpur had directed for the cancellation of the allotment of
plots in favour of the petitioners and the project affected persons from
11/15 1907WP1889.16+12-Judgment
Kharada had threatened to go on hunger strike. It is stated that in the
aforesaid background, the action of cancellation of allotment of plots
was taken.
5) On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find
that the allotment of plots in favour of the petitioners was cancelled
only on the dictates of the Hon'ble Guardian Minister of Nagpur, as is
clearly reflected from the communication issued by the Deputy
Collector, Gosikhurd, Nagpur to the Tahsildar Kuhi, dated 09/06/2015.
It is mentioned in the impugned communication that sixteen project
affected persons from Sonarwahi i.e. the petitioners herein were alloted
plots as per the draw of lots and they were also put in possession of the
respective plots. It is further stated in the impugned communication
that some project affected persons from Kharada had made a grievance
about the allotment of plots at Marodi to the petitioners and hence, the
Hon'ble Guardian Minister of Nagpur had, on a representation made by
the project affected persons at Kharada, directed the Deputy Collector,
Gosikhurd, Nagpur to immediately cancel the allotment of plots in
favour of the petitioners and also the possession receipts issued in their
favour. It is apparent from the communication, dated 09/06/2015 that
the impugned order of cancellation of the allotment of plots in favour of
the petitioners was passed by the Deputy Collector, Gosikhurd, Nagpur
solely on the dictates of the Hon'ble Guardian Minister of Nagpur, who
12/15 1907WP1889.16+12-Judgment
had directed the Deputy Collector, Gosikhurd, Nagpur to take
immediate action in respect of cancellation of the allotment in favour of
the petitioners and report compliance to him. The Deputy Collector,
Gosikhurd, Nagpur could not have implemented the order of the
Hon'ble Guardian Minister of Nagpur without considering the fact that
the plots were already allotted to the petitioners and they were put in
possession of the same. We do not find any reason in the impugned
order, other than the order or diktat of the Hon'ble Guardian Minister of
Nagpur, directing the Deputy Collector, Gosikhurd, Nagpur to cancel
the allotment in favour of the petitioners. We find that the action on
the part of the Deputy Collector in cancelling the allotment of the plots
solely on the dictates of the Hon'ble Guardian Minister of Nagpur is bad
in law and is liable to be set aside. When one party makes a grievance
to an Hon'ble Minister or a Guardian Minister, the Hon'ble Minister or
the Guardian Minister is not expected to issue directions to the
Government Authorities to take action on their dictates. At the most,
the party could be asked to take up appropriate proceedings for the
redressal of the grievance. There could have been a suggestion for
allotting some other plots at Marodi to the claimants of Kharada.
Instead of doing this, we find that the Hon'ble Guardian Minister of
Nagpur directed the cancellation of the allotment of the plots in favour
of the petitioners. The statement made in the affidavit-in-reply, that
there was some agitation by the project affected persons from Kharada
13/15 1907WP1889.16+12-Judgment
and, therefore, with a view to prevent law and order situation, the
allotment was cancelled appears to be only an eye wash. By the said
reply, the respondents are trying to supplement the impugned order
with reasons which we do not find in the impugned order. We do not
find any force whatsoever in the submission made on behalf of the
respondents that the cancellation of the plots was made only because
some of the project affected persons from Kharada had threatened to go
on hunger strike. We find that 275 project affected persons from
Kharada were already rehabilitated at Marodi and they were asking for
more plots. If an action is lawfully taken, merely because some persons,
who are not pleased with the action, threaten to go on hunger strike,
the action cannot be cancelled only on the basis of such threats. We find
from the communication issued by the Police Station Officer at Weltur
to the Tahsil Magistrate, Tahsil Karyalaya, Kuhi, which is surprisingly
undated as there is no date on the said communication, which creates
doubt about the date of preparation and the issuance of the same, that
the Hon'ble Guardian Minister of Nagpur had already directed the
cancellation of the allotment of plots in favour of the petitioners. We,
therefore, do not find any merit whatsoever in the submission made on
behalf of the respondents that with a view to prevent some persons
from going on hunger strike, the action of cancellation of plots in favour
of the petitioners was taken. We reiterate that the respondents could
have found some more plots in Marodi, if it was really necessary to do
14/15 1907WP1889.16+12-Judgment
so, for rehabilitation of the remaining project affected persons, if any,
from Kharada, at Marodi. We are firmly of the view that the action of
cancellation of plots is taken by the respondents only on the diktat of
the Hon'ble Guardian Minister of Nagpur. We further find that the
allotment of the plots was cancelled without hearing the petitioners and
without serving any notice on them. We find that the action on the part
of the respondents of cancellation of the allotment of plots in favour of
the petitioners is clearly illegal and the same cannot be sustained.
6) Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petitions are
allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. Rule is made
absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
KHUNTE
15/15 1907WP1889.16+12-Judgment
C E R T I F I C A T E
I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of
original signed Judgment.
Uploaded by : G.S.Khunte, Uploaded on : 25/07/2016
P.A.to Hon'ble Judge
