Bombay High Court
Savji Naru Kolgude @ Bhosale ... vs The Deputy Collector, ... on 5 March, 2021
Bench: K.K. Tated, R. I. Chagla
9-13,16,18-20,22,27.wpst.92290.2020 wt....doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO. 92290 OF 2020
Narayan Ramji More
(since deceased through his legal heirs)
Punaji Narayan More and Another ... Petitioners
Versus
The Deputy Collector,
Rehabilitation, Raigad and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO. 92302 OF 2020
Gunaji Balu Bhosale
(since deceased through his legal heir)
Laxman Gunaji Bhosale ... Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Collector,
Rehabilitation, Raigad and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO. 92310 OF 2020
Laxman Kondu Kadam
(since deceased through his legal heirs)
Narayan Laxman Kadam ... Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Collector,
Rehabilitation, Raigad and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO. 92316 OF 2020
Rama @ Ramji Jivaji Uttekar
(since deceased through his legal heirs)
Shivaji Ramji Uttekar ... Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Collector,
Rehabilitation, Raigad and Ors. ... Respondents
Waghmare 1 / 8
9-13,16,18-20,22,27.wpst.92290.2020 wt....doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO. 92322 OF 2020
Raghunath Shripat Bhosale ... Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Collector,
Rehabilitation, Raigad and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO. 98080 OF 2020
Maruti Lakshman Rajgude @ Sakpal
(since deceased through his legal heirs)
Sakhubai Maruti Sakpal & Ors. ... Petitioners
Versus
The Deputy Collector,
Rehabilitation, Raigad and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO. 99890 OF 2020
Savji Naru Kolgude @ Bhosale
(since deceased through his legal heirs)
Leelabai Ganpat Jadhav ... Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Collector,
Rehabilitation, Raigad and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO. 99891 OF 2020
Chandru Daji Jadhav
(since deceased through his legal heirs)
Rajendra Chandru Jadhav ... Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Collector,
Rehabilitation, Raigad and Ors. ... Respondents
Waghmare 2 / 8
9-13,16,18-20,22,27.wpst.92290.2020 wt....doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO. 99892 OF 2020
Babaji Ramji Jadhav
(since deceased through his legal heirs)
Kashinath Babaji Jadhav ... Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Collector,
Rehabilitation, Raigad and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 770 OF 2021
Krishna Raghu Jadhav
(since deceased through his legal heirs)
Rukmini Waman Jadhav ... Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Collector,
Rehabilitation, Raigad and Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO. 3335 OF 2021
Maruti Balu Jadhav
(since deceased through his legal heirs)
Shantabai Kashiram Bhosale ... Petitioner
Versus
The Deputy Collector,
Rehabilitation, Raigad and Ors. ... Respondents
.........
Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande a/w Kanchan Phatak for the Petitioners.
Mr. R.P. Kadam, A.G.P. for the State in WP (St.) Nos.92290 of 2020 and
92302 of 2020.
Mr. A.P. Vanarse, A.G.P. for the State in WP (St.) Nos.92310 of 2020 and
92316 of 2020.
Mr. C.D. Mali, A.G.P. for the State in WP (St.) Nos.92322 of 2020 and
98080 of 2020.
Ms. P.J. Gavhane, A.G.P. for the State in WP (St.) Nos.99890 of 2020 and
99891 of 2020.
Waghmare 3 / 8
9-13,16,18-20,22,27.wpst.92290.2020 wt....doc
Mr. S.S. Panchpore, A.G.P. for the State in WP (St.) Nos.99892 of 2020
and WP/770 of 2021.
Mr. V.S. Gokhale, 'B' Panel Advocate for the State in WP (St.) Nos.3335 of
2021.
.........
CORAM : K.K. TATED &
R.I. CHAGLA, JJ.
DATE : 5th MARCH, 2021.
P.C. :-
1 Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2 By these Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the Petitioners are seeking directions against the Additional
Collector, Satara, to prepare the report regarding the Petitioners' proposal
for alternate land as project affected persons under the Maharashtra
Project Affected Persons' Rehabilitation Act, 1999 and allot the land
immediately.
3 The learned Counsel Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande appearing on
behalf of the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners predecessor land was
acquired by the State some time in 1959. Since, then the Respondents
failed and neglected to provide alternate land to the Petitioners as per the
said Act. Hence, the Petitioners made application dated 25.09.2017 to
the Respondent-Collector for allotment of land.
Waghmare 4 / 8
9-13,16,18-20,22,27.wpst.92290.2020 wt....doc
4 The learned Additional Government Pleaders appearing on behalf
of the Respondent-State submits that the present Petitions are filed by the
Petitioners after more than 55 years from the date of acquisition of the
land. There is no explanation for latches on the part of the Petitioners.
They submit that on the basis of latches only, the present Petitions
required to be dismissed with costs. In support of this contention, he
relies on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court (Coram : A.A.
Sayed and Smt. Anuja Prabhudessai, JJ.) dated 17.01.2020 in Writ
Petition No.12287 of 2017 relies on paras 4 and 5 of the said order which
reads thus :
"4. On the point of delay, learned Counsel for the
Petitioner has relied upon the judgments in the case of
Tukaram Kana Joshi and Ors. Through Power of Attorney
Holder vs. M.I.D.C. and Ors. AIR 2013 SC 565; and Vidya
Devi vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., MANU SC
16 2020. So far as the judgment in the case Vidya Devi
(supra) is concerned, as stated in paragraph 11 of the said
judgment, the Supreme Court has interalia exercised its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the
Constitution. Insofar as the case of Tukaram Kana Joshi
(supra) is concerned, in paragraph 12 of the said judgment
itself it has been held that no hard and fast rule can be laid
down as to when the High Court should refuse to exercise its
jurisdiction in favour of a party, who moves it after
Waghmare 5 / 8
9-13,16,18-20,22,27.wpst.92290.2020 wt....doc
considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of latches.
5. A 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of
State of Maharashtra vs. Digamber, (1995) 4 SCC 683 , has
held in para 26 as follows:
"26. Thus, when the writ petitioner (respondent
here) was guilty of laches or undue delay in
approaching the High Court, the principle of laches
or undue delay adverted to above, disentitled the
writ petitioner (respondent here) for discretionary
relief under Article 226 of the Constitution from the
High Court, particularly, when virtually no attempt
had been made by the writ petitioner to explain his
blameworthy conduct of undue delay or laches. The
High Court, therefore, was wholly wrong in
granting relief in relation to inquiring into the
allegation and granting compensation for his land
alleged to have been used for scarcity relief road
works in the year 1971-72. As seen from the
judgment of the High Court, the allegation adverted
to above, appears to be the common allegation in
other 191 writ petitions where judgments are
rendered by the High Court following the judgment
under appeal and which are subject of SLPs in this
Court that are yet to be registered. We have,
therefore, no hesitation in holding that the High
Court had gone wholly wrong in granting the relief
which it has given in the judgment under appeal,
Waghmare 6 / 8
9-13,16,18-20,22,27.wpst.92290.2020 wt....doc
and judgments rendered following the said
judgment in other 191 writ petitions, said to be the
subject of SLPs or otherwise. All the said judgments
of the High Court, having regard to the fact that
they were made in writ petitions with common
allegation and seeking common relief, are liable to
be interfered with and set aside in the interests of
justice even though only learned counsel appearing
for a few writ petitioners were heard by us."
6 The learned Counsel for the Petitioners in support of this case
relies on the order dated 29.10.2020 passed by Division Bench of this
Court Justice A.A. Sayed and Surendra P. Tavade in Writ Petition (Stamp)
No.94519 of 2020 with other connected matters, directing the concerned
Additional Collector to decide the case of the project affected persons as
early as possible.
7 When this Court declined to enter the present Writ Petitions,
the learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that the Petitioners may
be permitted to withdraw the Writ Petitions unconditionally. To that
effect he has given in writing. The same is taken on record and marked
'X' for identification. Same is accepted.
Waghmare 7 / 8
9-13,16,18-20,22,27.wpst.92290.2020 wt....doc
8 Hence the following order is passed :
i) Writ Petitions stand dismissed as withdrawn
unconditionally.
ii) No order as to costs.
Digitally
signed by
Waishali Waishali S.
Waghmare
S. Date:
Waghmare 2021.03.09
( R.I. CHAGLA, J. ) ( K.K. TATED, J. ) 23:40:03
+0530
Waghmare 8 / 8
