Ayub Abdul Raheman And Others vs The State Of Maharashatra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 2323 Bom

                                              1




                                                                                
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                          BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                        
                             WRIT PETITION NO.3130 OF 1994

    1. Ayub Abdul Raheman,




                                                       
    2. Abdul Mannan S/o Abdul Raheman,

    3. Attawar Raheman S/o Abdul Mannan,




                                             
    4. Chand Pasha S/o Abdul Raheman,
        All, aged about 38, 60, 35 and 33
                               
        respectively, Occu-Agriculturist,
        R/o Pathrud, Tal.Mazalgaon,
        Dist.Beed
                                                                    PETITIONERS
                              
    VERSUS 
    1. The State of Maharashtra,

    2. The Tahsildar,
      

        Mazalgaon, Tal.Mazalgaon,
        Dist.Beed,
   



    3. The Sub Divisional Officer,
        Ambajogai, Tal.Ambajogai,
        Dist.Beed,





    4. The Additional Collector,
        Beed, Tal. and Dist. Beed,

    5. The Additional Commissioner,
        Aurangabad, Division-Aurangabad                             RESPONDENTS 

Mr.V.D.Salunke, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.A.P.Basarkar, AGP for respondent/State.

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

DATE : 05/05/2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

khs/May 2016/3130-d

1. This petition was Admitted vide order dated 10/10/1994. The

petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 30/12/1992 passed by the

S.D.O. Ambejogai, order dated 30/07/1993 passed by the Additional

Collector, Beed and the order dated 02/08/1994 delivered by the

Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad.

2. The petitioners had applied for NA permission on 06/11/1989

praying for permission to use an area admeasuring 3 acres and 12

gunthas out of land Survey No.350. The purpose narrated was for

residential accommodation of the petitioners. By order dated

11/12/1990, the application filed by the petitioners was allowed subject

to the 24 conditions that were imposed upon the petitioners. The said

conditions are set out below paragraph No.2 of the order dated

11/12/1990.

3. Before the petitioners could proceed to implement the said

conditions and occupy the land for residential purpose, the Deputy

Collector, Ambajogai, suo-motu issued notice and subsequently passed

the impugned order dated 30/12/1992 by which the permission granted

to the petitioners on 11/12/1990 was set aside only for the reason that

a fresh proposal for extension of Gavthan including Survey No.350 was

submitted by the Tahsildar, Majalgoan. For the same reason, the

khs/May 2016/3130-d

impugned orders dated 30/07/1993 and 02/08/1994 have been passed.

4. Mr.Salunke strenuously submits that ever since the cancellation

of the permission on 30/12/1992, even after a passage of almost 24

years, till today, there has been no development on S.No.350, much less

any extension of the Gavthan. He submits that the said land is as it is

and neither could the petitioners utilize it, nor could the

respondent/State earn any revenue out of the permission granted to

him on 11/12/1990.

5. Learned AGP appearing on behalf of the State submits on

instructions that as on date, there has been no development. He also

submits that the reason for setting aside the permission was purely

because a fresh proposal for extension of Gavthan was submitted by the

Tahsildar, Mazalgaon.

6. He, however, submits that the passage of 24 years may be

considered and the petitioners be directed to submit a fresh proposal for

seeking NA permission as the present situation as well as the policy of

the State would be relevant and germane to the issue of grant of

permission.

khs/May 2016/3130-d

7. I have considered the submissions of the learned Advocates. There

is no dispute as regards the grant of permission and the reason for

cancellation. However, it cannot be ignored that in the last 24 years,

though the said Gavthan at village Pathrud, Tal.Majalgaon, Dist.Beed

may not have undergone any change, yet the present policy of the

Government needs to be considered without putting the petitioners to

any further costs or expenditure. As such, considering the fact that the

reason cited for cancelling the permission was never brought into effect,

the impugned orders deserve to be quashed. At the same time, this

Court cannot ignore the submissions of the learned AGP that the

present policy of the Government will have to be scrutinized if the said

permission is to be restored.

8. In the light of the above, this petition is partly allowed. the

impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to

the Tahsildar, Majalgaon in the light of the application filed by the

petitioners, only for reconsideration as to whether the NA permission

granted on 11/12/1990 can be continued on the same terms and

conditions set out in the order or as to whether the policy has

undergone any change and as to whether further conditions are

required to be imposed on the petitioners.

khs/May 2016/3130-d

9. As such, the Tahsildar, Majalgaon shall issue a notice of hearing

to the petitioners and without imposing any further costs or expenditure

or fees on the petitioners, shall consider whether the said NA permission

can be restored or not. The Tahsildar shall issue a notice of hearing as

directed above, within 4 (four) weeks from today and shall decide the

issue within 8 (eight) weeks from the appearance of the petitioners.

10.

Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

khs/May 2016/3130-d