Bombay High Court
Annasaheb Ganpat Ghule And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ... on 9 August, 2021
Bench: Mangesh S. Patil
1 41-wp15479-19.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.15479 OF 2019
1] Annasaheb Ganpat Ghule
Age 35 years, Occu.Agri.
R/o Ghule Galli, Washi,
Tal.Washi, Dist.Osmanabad.
2] Amol Ganpat Ghule
Age 32 years, Occu.Agri.
R/o Ghule Galli,Washi,
Tal.Washi,Dist.Osmanabad. .. PETITIONERS
[Orig.Non Applicant
in LAR No.911/2016]
VERSUS
1] The State of Maharashtra
Through the Sub Divisional Officer,
(Acquisition) Kallamb
Dist.Osmanabad.
2] Mainabai Gorakh Undre
Age: major, Occu.Agri.
R/o Washi, Tal.Washi
Dist.Osmanabad.
3] Dashrath Vishwanath Ghule
Age: major, Occu.Agri.
R/o Washi, Tal.Washi
Dist.Osmanabad.
4] Pandurang Tatyaba Ghule
Age: major, Occu.Agri.
R/o Washi, Tal.Washi
Dist.Osmanabad. .. RESPONDENTS.
[2 -Orig.Applicant Nos.1&2]
[4-Orig.Non-Applicant No.1]
...
::: Uploaded on - 10/08/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 11/08/2021 02:53:22 :::
2 41-wp15479-19.odt
Shri Vikram S. Undre, Advocate for the petitioners
Shri K.B.Jadhavar,A.G.P. for respondent no.1
Shri G.J.Kore, Advocate for respondent no.3.
...
CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL,J.
DATED : 09/08/2021.
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Learned Advocate
Mr.Kore waives service for respondent no.3. With the consent of both the
sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.
2] The petitioners who are the original non applicants in the Land
Acquisition Reference are impugning the order passed on their
Application (Exh.69) refusing to allow them amendment to be carried out
in the Written Statement so as to describe the properties in dispute with
reference to their old Survey numbers and new numbers.
3] After having heard both the sides, it transpires that the application
of the petitioners has been rejected simply on the ground that the order
regarding amendment sought by the petitioners on an earlier occasion on
their Application (Exh.53) was not carried out and that even in the
present application clear description of the old Survey numbers and the
new numbers as also the extent of the lands have not been specifically
mentioned/sought to be pleaded.
4] Since it is a matter of a Land Acquisition Reference, the description
of the lands under acquisition is a matter which is of utmost importance.
3 41-wp15479-19.odt
Even if the parties are lax in coming with a specific pleading in respect of
the numbers and extent of the lands the Civil Courts cannot be passive.
5] Rather, it would have been appropriate for the learned Judge to
have called upon the petitioners to describe the properties in detail.
6] On the last date this Court by order dated 19/04/2021 had directed
the learned advocate for the petitioners to submit such a chart giving
entire description of the lands. Accordingly they have submitted such a
chart.
7] Considering all the aforementioned facts and circumstances, it
would be appropriate that the impugned order is quashed and set aside
with a direction to the petitioners to submit a fresh application with the
complete details/particulars of the lands as is mentioned in the chart
submitted before this Court and solicit an amendment. The learned Civil
Judge shall thereafter decide the application and shall not reject it only on
the ground of want of description or for non compliance of the earlier
order of amendment passed on the Application (Exh.53).
8] With this direction, the Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of.
9] The Rule is made absolute.
(MANGESH S. PATIL,J.)
umg/
