Bombay High Court
Shri Vijaykumar S/O Uttamchand ... vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 24 March, 2017
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment wp3471.16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No. 3471 OF 2016.
1. Shri Vijaykumar s/o Uttamchand Bothra,
Age 55 years, Occupation -
Agriculturist, r/o. Saraf lane,
Buldhana.
2. Sanjaykumar s/o Uttamchand Bothra,
Age 46 years, Occupation -
Agriculturist, r/o. Saraf lane,
Buldhana.
3. Smt. Shobha w/o Manaklal Raakhecha,
Age 59 years, r/o. Chopda, Tahsil
Chopda, District Jalgaon (Khandesh).
4. Smt. Aruna w/o Ajay Sanklecha,
Age 53 years, r/o. Saraf lane,
Buldhana.
5. Smt. Asha d/o Uttamchand Bothra,
Age 49 years, Occupation -
Agriculturist, r/o. Saraf lane,
Buldhana.
6. Smt. Kalpana d/o Uttamchand Bothra,
Age 44 years, r/o. Saraf lane,
Buldhana.
7. Smt. Leela w/o Pravinchand Samadadiya,
Age 61 years, r/o. Yevla, Tahsil
Kopargaon, District Nashik.
Petitioner Nos. 2 to 7 through their Power of
Attorney holder Vijaykumar s/o Uttamchand
Bothra, ....PETITIONERS.
::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2017 00:52:05 :::
Judgment wp3471.16
2
VERSUS
1. State of Maharashtra,
through its Secretary, Ministry
of Urban Development, Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
2. Special Land Acquisition/competent
Authority and Deputy Collector,
(Urban Land Ceiling), Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
3. Collector, Civil Lines,
Nagpur.
4. Tahsildar, Tahsil Parseoni,
District Nagpur. ....RESPONDENTS
.
-----------------------------------
Mr. R.R. Srivastava, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. S.P. Deshpande, Addl. Govt. Pleader for Respondents.
------------------------------------
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.
DATED : MARCH 24, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT. (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J)
Heard Shri R.R. Shrivastava, learned counsel for petitioners and
Judgment wp3471.16
Shri S.P. Deshpande, learned Addl.G.P. for respondents. Considering the
controversy involved and by their consent, Writ Petition is taken up for final
hearing by issuing Rule, making the same returnable forthwith.
2. Petitioners claim that after repeal of Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, 1976 w.e.f. 29.11.2007, the lands earlier declared surplus,
but, not taken into possession, are excluded and saved from that enactment.
Petitioners claim that even today they continue in possession.
3. Along with Pursis, petitioners have placed on record an order
passed by the Divisional Commissioner dated 30.07.2016. It appears that
after coming into force of this Act, as per orders of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court, a time bound program was framed on 12.05.2010 and as per that
program, the Divisional Commissioner has completed the exercise and
passed that order. The orders shows that possession of petitioners land was
not taken before 29.11.2007.
4. Verification of original records show that notice under Section
10[3] of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 was issued on 01.11.2007; Notice
under Section 10[5] was issued on 05.11.2007. As per that notice,
petitioners were to be informed that possession of their lands was to be
Judgment wp3471.16
taken on a particular date and therefore, they should remain present on the
spot. Date scheduled for possession is left blank in this notice. Panchnama
is prepared allegedly on 14.11.2007 on spot in presence of 2 witnesses
mentioning that possession of lands of petitioners was taken. It is also
recorded that petitioners have refused to sign. There is no proof of service
of Section 10[5] notice upon petitioners or then of service of said
panchnama demonstrating taken of exparte possession, upon them.
5. In this situation, we have no hesitation to accept the order of
Divisional Commissioner dated 30.07.2016.
6. It is therefore, apparent that possession of lands of petitioners i.e.
Survey No.249, ad-measuring 33104.83 sq. mtrs. Of village Kandri (Guj),
was never taken and therefore, the lands are not subject to provisions of the
1976 Act. Accordingly, we make Rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (I).
Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
