Bombay High Court
Arvind Shahuraj Jadhav vs The State Of Mah And Ors on 22 January, 2018
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
1 WP - 6276-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 6276 OF 2012
Arvind S/o Shahuraj Jadhav,
Age : 55 years, Occu. Agri.,
R/o. Naichakur, Tq. Omerga,
Dist. Osmanabad .. Petitioner
Versus
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through Secretary,
Revenue and Forest Department,
Government of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400 032
2] The Collector, Osmanabad
Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad
3] The Tahsildar, Omerga,
Tahasil Office, Omerga
Tq. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad
4] Deputy Superintendent,
Land Record, Omerga,
Tq. Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad .. Respondents
...
Mr. Prashant K. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. S.J. Salgare, AGP for respondent - State
...
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH &
P. R. BORA, JJ.
DATE : 22-01-2018
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER - SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.) :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned
counsel for the parties finally, by consent.
2 WP - 6276-2012
2. Learned counsel Mr. Deshmukh for the petitioner submits
that he is owner of land admeasuring 2 Hectare, 48 Are portion of
survey no. 61/1 since 1997, having purchased the same from its
erstwhile owner under a registered deed of sale. From the said land,
a portion of 20 Are had been acquired by the State Government for
Sarvadi project and owner of land had received a paltry
compensation and balance of compensation had not been paid.
3. According to learned counsel, on one hand, aforesaid is
the position and on the other, under garb of a policy of removal of
encroachment by the agriculturists, a road has been constructed in
June, 2011, however, the action is not proper and is illegal. He
submits that in the process, his 10 standing trees and water course
over his land have been damaged and he is thus suffering losses.
The road has been constructed without measurement, illegally and
the State Government is liable to pay compensation. He refers to
that in the notice he has claimed compensation to the tune of
Rs.1,50,000/-. He submits that since the land has already been
encroached upon, claim had been made for direction to initiate land
acquisition proceedings and to pay compensation under this writ
petition.
3 WP - 6276-2012
4. He submits that subsequent developments are also
pointer to that the road width is of 22 feet and it passes through his
land. He, for some time, purported to contend that for the road
purposes, other surrounding agriculturists' land have been acquired
and compensation has also been paid to them. He, thus, urges this
Court to allow the writ petition and direct the State Government to
initiate land acquisition proceedings.
5. Resisting aforesaid submission, learned Assistant
Government Pleader Mr. Salgare submits that from village Sarwadi
to Naichakur, there has been a cart way existing since times
immemorial and the same passes through survey nos. 65, 61, 50,
57, 55 and 90 of village Naichakur. Since the cart way had been
encroached by some agriculturists and had been in a bad condition,
the same had been strengthened by mud work with public
participation in which all the villagers have co-operated.
6. He further refers to affidavit-in-reply filed stating that
part of cart way passes adjacent to the petitioner's land. He further
points out that save petitioner, none of the villagers had objected to
construction of cart way. He submits that while the panchanama
had been prepared, petitioner was present and he was advised to
have his land measured, in order to find out as to whether really
4 WP - 6276-2012
there has been any encroachment, however, the petitioner has not
proceeded further. He further submits that the petition raises
several disputed questions of facts.
7. Having heard learned counsel for parties as aforesaid, in
the first place, the petitioner does not substantiate claims by placing
any material worth consideration. Save the notice issued at instance
of petitioner to the authorities, there is nothing produced on record
to show that there were existing 10 trees or water course or for that
matter, any material showing that the strengthening of road has
caused encroachment over his land.
8. In the face of such situation, while it appears that there
had been already subsisting road which is claimed to have been
strengthened, in absence of any material on record, it is difficult to
accede to request made under the writ petition and, thus, the writ
petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged.
[P. R. BORA] [SUNIL P. DESHMUKH]
JUDGE JUDGE
arp/
