Bombay High Court
Proposed Rajeshri ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 21 December, 2017
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
1 wp 15052.17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 15052 OF 2017
Proposed Rajeshri Shahu Maharaj
Magasvergiya Sahakari Gruha Nirman
Sanstha Maryadit, Gangakhed
Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani
Through Its Chief Promoter
Shri Gautam S/o Amrutrao Rohinkar
Age: 48 years, occu: labour
R/o Old Mondha, Gangakhed
Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra,
Through its Secretary,
Revenue Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.
2. The Divisional Commissioner,
Aurangabad division, Aurangabad
3. The Collector, Parbhani
Dist. Parbhani
4. The Tahsildar, Gangakhed
Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani Respondents.
Shri S.K. Chavan, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri S.B. Pulkundwar, Assistant Govt. Pleader for Respondents
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND
V.L. ACHLIYA, JJ .
DATE : 21st DECEMBER, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT ( Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J. ) :-
1. Rule.
2 wp 15052.17
2. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of
parties petition is taken up for final hearing.
3. Mr. Chavan, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that, the petitioner's society is consisting of members of the
backward class i.e. scheduled caste. The aim and object of the
society is to purchase the land and build the houses meant for
backward class members. According to the learned counsel, the
petitioner had applied for allotment of land for the purpose of
construction of houses, however, the said application has been
rejected solely on the basis of the Government Resolution dated
12th July, 2011. The learned counsel submits that, the said
Government Resolution is issued only on the count that, the
Apex Court in a case of Jagpalsingh and others Vs. State of
Punjab reported in 2011 AIR S.C. 1123 had issued certain
directions. The learned counsel states that, the said directions
would not come in the way of the petitioner. The learned
counsel relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this court
in Writ Petition No. 117 of 2012 dated 03rd August, 2012.
4. Mr. Pulkundwar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader
states that, the said Government Resolution has been issued in
consonance with the directions issued by the Apex Court in a
3 wp 15052.17
case of Jagpalsingh and others Vs. State of Punjab referred
to supra. No error has been committed while passing the
impugned order.
5. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the
learned counsel for the respective parties and the judgment
delivered by this court in Writ Petition No. 117 of 2012 referred
to supra.
6. This court in the afore-referred judgment has interpreted
the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Jagpalsingh and
others Vs. State of Punjab. It has put a gloss over the said
judgment and as stated in the said judgment that the judgment
of Apex Court cannot be read to mean that the State
Government has been prohibited from granting land in
accordance with provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue
(Disposal of Government Lands ) Rules, 1971 to eligible
applicants.
7. In light of the above, the impugned order (Exhibit 'D'
Page 26) is quashed and set aside. The Respondent / Authority
shall consider the application of the petitioner in accordance
with provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue ( Disposal of
Government Lands ) Rules, 1971 and take decision upon the
4 wp 15052.17
same on its own merits, in accordance with law, expeditiously
and preferably within six (6) months.
8. The Writ Petition is accordingly partly allowed. No costs.
[ V.L. ACHLIYA, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]
vbd
