Baburao Yadavrao Pawar vs The Chief Executive Officer Zp ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4078 Bom

                                         {1}
                                                                   wp 8149.16.odt

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         WRIT PETITION NO.8149 of 2016

 Baburao S/o Yadavrao Pawar
 Age: 65 years, occu: Agriculturist,
 R/o Pathrad, Tq. Hadgaon,
 Dist. Nanded                                             Petitioner

          Versus

 1        The Chief Executive Officer,
          Zilla Parishad, Nanded
          Tq. & Dist. Nanded


 2        The Sarpanch / Gramsevak,
          Grampanchayat Tamsa, Tamsa,
          Tq. Hadgaon, Dist. Nanded


 3        Vishnu s/o Uttam Kondamangal,
          Age: 25 years, occu: Agriculturist,
          R/o Tamsa, Tq. Hadgaon,
          Dist. Nanded                                    Respondents

Mr V. B. Dhage advocate for the petitioner Mr. Y.K. Bobade h/f Mr. A.B. Shinde for Respondent No.1 Mr. M.S.Taur advocate for respondent No.2 Mr. K.M. Nagarkar advocate for respondent No.3 _______________

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J (Date : 5th July, 2017.)

ORAL JUDGMENT

1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with

{2} wp 8149.16.odt

the consent of the parties.

2 The petitioner is aggrieved by the directions issued by

respondent No.1 dated 11.7.2016 under section 56 of the

Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act.

3 I have considered the submissions of the learned

advocates for the respective sides. By order dated 2.8.2016, this

Court had granted ad interim stay to the impugned order.

4 A scheme by title 'Rural Housing Scheme' was introduced

in 1959 to be implemented by the respective Gram Panchayats.

By the said scheme, the Grampanchayat was empowered to allot

plots to the villagers, who were residents of the said

Grampanchayats, on the condition that they would pay the

premium. The father of the petitioner Yadavrao Pawar who is

deceased had also paid the premium. Yet the plot was not

allotted.

5 The petitioner moved an application in 1990, seeking

allotment of the said plot. Same was accepted by a resolution of

the Gramapanchayat dated 25.11.1990 bearing No.237. He was

then allotted a plot.

6 Respondent No.3, who is the resident of the same village,

moved an application on 5.5.2016 to respondent No.1, alleging

{3} wp 8149.16.odt

illegalities against the petitioner while allotting the plots 16 years

ago. By the impugned order, respondent No.1 has directed

respondent No.2 Grampanchayat, Tamsa to re-enquire into the

case of the petitioner as well as inquire into the allotment of

plots to other plot holders, similarly placed.

7 There is no dispute that after 1959, the petitioner sought

allotment of the plot in 1990. There is also no dispute that

respondent No.3 raised the objection after 16 years of the

allotment.

8 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the

proviso to section 56(i), the view expressed by the respondent

No.1 in the impugned order is unsustainable as it does not

require a sale-deed or a lease agreement, as the case of the

petitioner is covered by the Rural Housing Scheme. He,

therefore, submits that the limit of three years for granting a

lease deed would not apply to this case.

9 I find that there are several issues, which have not been

delved upon by respondent No.1, while passing the impugned

order. Nevertheless, the inquiry has to be conducted by

respondent No.2, by modifying the impugned order, some further

directions can be issued.

{4} wp 8149.16.odt

10 Considering the above, this petition is partly allowed and

the impugned order dated 11.7.2016 is modified as under:-

A) Respondent No.2 would consider, whether the father of the

petitioner was eligible under the Rural Housing Scheme ?

B) Whether the Rural Housing Scheme is still in existence ?

C) Whether the denial of a plot to the father of the petitioner

was justifiable and whether the petitioner could be held entitled

for allotment of a plot, after 31 years of the said scheme, on his

application made in 1990 ?

D) If the petitioner's case needs to be inquired into, all

similarly situated villagers will also have to be subjected to such

inquiry and respondent No.2 shall, therefore, initiate the said

process and give a reasonable opportunity to all such villagers,

who are likely to be affected.

E) Respondent No.2 would also scrutinize whether section

56(i) and the proviso there-below, would apply to the case of the

petitioner and if yes, would it apply to the cases of all similarly

situated villagers.

11 Respondent No.2 shall conduct such inquiry within a period

{5} wp 8149.16.odt

of 8 months from today.

12 Needless to state, the resolution dated 20.2.2013

forwarded to respondent No.1 by respondent No.2 shall be

decided on its own merits by considering its effect on such

inquiry.

13 The interim relief granted by this Court on 2.8.2016 would

continue to protect him till the decision of the inquiry and would

further protect him and all aggrieved villagers, if the inquiry

report is adverse to their interest, for a further period of four

weeks.

14 Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE , J)

vbd