Bombay High Court
Pratap Hukmtmal Chugh vs State Of Maharashtra & 10 Ors on 12 July, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
wp.344.02
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 344/2002
* Pratap Hukmatmal Chugh
Aged about 47 years, Member
Gram Panchayat, Sakoli
R/o Main road, Sakoli, Tah.Sakoli
District: Bhandara. ..PETITIONER
VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra
Through the Secretary
Revenue ad Forests Department
Mantralaya, Mumbai -400032
2) The Collector
Bhandara, Tah.& Dist. Bhandara
3) Sub-Divisional Officer
Sakoli, Tah.Sakoli
Dist. Bhandrara.
4) S.S. Malgam
Sub-Divisional Officer
R/o Sakoli, Tah.Sakoli
Dist. Bhandara.
5) Vijay Mahesh Gupta
Aged about 31 years
6) Arun s/o Parasram Gupta
Aged about 27 years
7) Suresh s/o Ramswaroop Gupta
Aged about 37 years
::: Uploaded on - 15/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/07/2017 00:14:45 :::
wp.344.02
2
8) Pandurang s/o Bajirao Kapgate
Aged about 40 years
9) Arun s/o Kewalram Zingre,
Aged about 38 years
10) Sarasram s/o Pyardalsao Mohbe
Aged about 48 years,
Nos. 5 to 11 all residents of
Sakoli Tah.Sakoli
District : Bhandara. ..RESPONDENTS
.
...................................................................................................................
None for the petitioner
Mr.s. Geeta Tiwari, Asst. Government Pleader for respondents 1,2,3 & 11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE &
MRS.SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : 12 th
July, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per R.K.DESHPANDE, J.)
The matter was called out on 11.07.2017. None appeared
for the petitioner and it was adjourned. Today also, none appears for the
petitioner. Mrs. Geeta Tiwari, learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for respondent nos.1,2,3 and 11 has invited our attention the
return filed in this petition by the respondents.
2. Challenge in the present case is to the auction of Plot Nos.
48A, 48B, 48C, 48D, 48E and 48F by the office of the Sub-Divisional
wp.344.02
Officer, Sakoli, District Bhandara, held on 20.12.2001. Notice for auction
of those plots was issued on 07.12.2001, which was published after
obtaining the permission of the Collector. In the auction, the respondent
nos. 5 to 10 were the highest bidders in respect of the plots in question.
They had deposited the amount and the auction was confirmed. This
Court passed an order of status quo on 28.1.2002 as on that day and it
was continued on 3rd July, 2002 when the matter was admitted. There is
nothing on record to show the position prevailing as on the date of
passing of order of status quo by this Court. It is not known as to
whether the possession was handed over to the respondent nos.5 to 10.
3. We fail to understand the locus of the petitioner to challenge
such auction proceedings. In petition, he describes himself as a Member
of Gram Panchayat and also Ex-Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Sakoli. The
plots in question were disposed of in exercise of the powers conferred
upon the Collector under the Maharashtra Land Revenue (Disposal of
Land) Rules, 1971. We have gone through the petition and we do not
find a challenge to the auction on the ground of violation of any specific
provisions of the Rules. The ground raised is of undue haste in
auctioning the plots and stating different dates of depositing the amount
wp.344.02
by the auction-purchasers. It is also the ground raised in the petition that
the upset price shown in respect of the plots in question was much lesser
than the market value.
4. In the return filed by the respondents, it is the stand taken
that such a price was fixed on the basis of the report dated 1.3.2000
submitted by the Town Planning Officer prescribing the rate of Rs. 310
per sq.metre. There is no challenge raised in respect of the report of the
Town Planner. It is not the ground raised that the upset price shown was
lesser than the one shown in the Ready Reckoner maintained by the
Town Planing Department. From the return filed by the respondents, it is
apparent that the procedure prescribed was followed and there is no
reason for us to decide such a stand taken, in the absence of specific
ground to that effect raised in the petition.
5. We do not find any substance in this petition. The same is
dismissed.
JUDGE JUDGE
sahare
