Bombay High Court
Narendrakumar Gowardhandas ... vs The Gram Panchayat, Kandli Thr. ... on 29 September, 2021
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
wp1048.20.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1048 OF 2020
PETITIONER: Narendrakumar Gowardhandas Agrawal,
aged : 60 years, Occ. Business, residing at
Main Road, Near Bus Stop, Paratwada,
Taluqa : Achalpur and District : Amravati
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS:1] The Gram Panchayat, Kandli, through
its Sarpanch, Taluqa : Achalpur,
District Amravati.
2] The Village Development Officer,
Gram Panchayat, Kandli, through
its Sarpanch, Taluqa : Achalpur,
District Amravati.
3] The Naib Tahsildar, Achalpur,
4] Amol s/o Prakashrao Pawar,
Aged : 30 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Khaparde Plot, Paratwada,
Tq. Achalpur, Dist. Amravati.
5] Manoj s/o Bhanudas Hate,
Aged : 35 years, Occ. Private Service
R/o. Pandurang Nagar, Govardhan Vihar
Kandli, Tq. Achalpur, Dist. Amravati.
6] Rajesh s/o Nagorao Raut,
Aged : 40 years, Occ. Private Service
R/o. Kandli, Tq. Achalpur, Dist. Amravati.
7] Pramod s/o Uttamrao Dhakde,
Aged : 34 years, Occ. Private Service
R/o. Mouza Kandli, Tq. Achalpur,
Dist. Amravati.
::: Uploaded on - 08/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2021 08:06:52 :::
wp1048.20.odt
2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Sunil Manohar, Senior Counsel with Shri Rahul Dhande, Counsel for
petitioner
Shri N.A.Gawande, counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
Miss. T.Khan, AGP for Respondent No.3
Shri S.J.Shingane, counsel for Respondent Nos. 4 to 7/Intervenors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 29/09/2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] Heard Mr. Sunil Manohar, learned Senior Counsel with
Mr. Dhande, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gawande, learned
counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Miss. T. Khan, learned AGP for
Respondent No. 3 and Mr. Shingane, learned counsel for
intervenors/Respondent Nos. 4 to 7.
2] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
3] The petition challenges the order dated 31.1.2020
passed by the Respondent No. 3, directing removal of obstruction
claimed to have been created by the petitioner, upon the approach
road to the village of Kandli, which was made upon an application
filed by the villagers and the notice dated 15.2.2020, issued in
wp1048.20.odt
pursuance thereto by the Village Panchayat, Kandli/Respondent
Nos.1 and 2.
4] The facts leading to the present petition are as follows :
a) The land of Survey No. 119 at village Kandli, was divided into
six portions, out of which the petitioner is the owner of land bearing
Survey No. 119/1 and 119/5.
b) The user of land Survey No. 119/5 was converted to non-
agricultural use (industrial), by the order dated 30.12.1995, passed
by the Tahsildar, Achalpur.
c) This conversion was recommended by the Assistant Director,
Town Planning, Amravati, who had approved the lay-out plan.
d) The order dated 30.12.1995, of the Tahsildar, converting the
user of the land of Sr.No.119/5 was cancelled by the Tahsildar
himself by an order dated 21.3.2014.
e) This order of the Tahsildar dated 21.3.2014, cancelling his
earlier order, was challenged before the Additional Collector,
Amravati, who by his order dated 22.7.2014, set aside the order
dated 21.3.2014, and remanded the matter back to the Tahsildar.
f) The proceedings in this regard are still pending.
wp1048.20.odt
g) On a plea raised by the villagers, that an 80 ft. Development
Plan road was passing through the land of Survey No. 119/5, which
was to be used by the villagers to approach the village, a notice was
issued on 12.5.2014 to the petitioner by the respondents 1 and 2,
claiming that the 80 feet DP road as passing through the land of
Survey No. 119/5, was encroached by the petitioner and therefore,
the same should be removed by 18.5.2014, failing which the
encroachment would be removed on the next day by the Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2.
h) This notice dated 12.5.2014, was challenged by the petitioner
before the 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Achalpur, by filing
Regular Civil Suit No. 83/2014 (Narendrakumar vrs. Gram
Panchayat, Kandli and another).
i) A specific issue was framed therein as to whether the
defendants proved that the plaintiff had encroached on the alleged
80 feet way as demonstrated in para 8 of the judgment, which issue
was answered in the negative and a decree was passed on
6.12.2017, against Respondent Nos.1 and 2, perpetually restraining
them from disturbing the possession of the plaintiff/petitioner on the
suit property (land of Sr.No. 119/5) without due process of law.
wp1048.20.odt
j) This decree was not challenged and therefore has attained
finality.
k) After nearly four years thereafter, on 29.8.2019, a
communication was issued by the Tahsildar, Achalpur, to the Deputy
Director, TILR, contending that, in the jungle map, a road is
indicated from the land of Survey No.119, which survey number has
been sub-divided into various pieces and therefore, an enquiry be
conducted to determine as to from which sub-division of Survey
No.119, this road passes and submit a report.
l) The Deputy Director, TILR, by his communication dated
12.9.2019, wrote back to the Tahsildar, Achalpur, that before
submitting a report, it would be necessary to measure the entire land
for which the requisite measurement fee should be deposited.
m) No such deposit appears to have been made, neither any
measurement has been conducted by the office of the TILR in
pursuance to the request dated 29.8.2019.
n) Thereafter the impugned order has been passed on 31.1.2020
by the Respondent No. 3, as indicated above.
5] The contentions of Shri Sunil Manohar, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner are as follows :
wp1048.20.odt
(i) That perusal of the order itself would indicate that the order
will not sustainable in law as it does not indicate the exercise of
power under which it has been passed.
(ii) The order itself indicates that in the Talathi Report it has been
stated that since portions of Survey No.119 had been sub-divided
and were being used for various purposes, out of which there was a
Dal Mill in Survey No.119/5, it was impossible to determine from
which Survey Number, the road shown in the jungle map was
passing, in view of which a measurement was absolutely necessary
which has not been done.
(iii) Though the order further notes that in the Development Plan,
a road of 80 feet has been shown passing through the land of Survey
No.119/5 which is claimed to have been blocked in 2013, there is
nothing on record to indicate the existence of a Development Plan,
or the reservation of any road passing through the land of S.
No.119/5.
(iv) Though the report of the Talathi, which has been relied upon
in the impugned order, itself indicates that there was a need to
measure the land so as to determine the existence of the road/way,
the same was not done and the impugned order came to be passed,
wp1048.20.odt
without such measurement, on which ground alone the impugned
order is not sustainable.
(v) Though the Talathi report, indicates the need to determine
the existence of the road, the impugned order presumes the
existence of such a road and merely on such presumption, which
was totally unjustified, directs removal of the obstruction, which is
unjustifiable.
(vi) The notice thereafter as issued by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 on
15.2.2020, to the petitioner, in pursuance of the impugned order
dated 31/1/2020, was illegal, as the respondents were bound by the
decree as passed in RCS No.83/2014, being parties to it.
(vii) The decree as passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 83/2014 also
has not been considered by Respondent No. 3 while passing the
impugned order.
6] The contentions of Mr. Gawande, learned counsel for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are as under :
(i) The petition is not maintainable, as the passing of the order
can be attributed to the provisions of Section 50 of the Maharashtra
Land Revenue Code, against which an appeal lies under
Section 50(5) of the MLR Code.
wp1048.20.odt
(ii) Since the order of conversion of the land had been set aside,
the land assumes the status of agricultural land again and therefore,
the Revenue Authority had jurisdiction.
(iii) Section 53 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act enjoins
upon Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to remove the encroachment and it is
in pursuance to that duty that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had
acted in issuing the notice dated 15.2.2020, to the petitioner, in
pursuance of the order dt.31/1/2020 passed by the Tahsildar.
(iv) The petitioner is guilty of suppression, which, according to
him, is deliberate and intentional, as in spite of being aware that the
order impugned had been passed at the instance of the villagers
named therein, i.e. respondents 4 to 7, they were not made parties
to the petition, who had subsequently filed application for
intervention, which being allowed, they were then made
parties/respondents 4 to 7 to the petition.
(v) Though an appeal was filed before the Sub Divisional Officer
against the impugned order dated 31.1.2020, on 17.2.2020, without
disclosing the same, the present petition was filed and the interim
order was secured on 26.2.2020.
wp1048.20.odt
(vi) This was not a case of an inadvertent mistake on part of the
petitioner, as the appeal before the SDO continued to pend till
12.10.2020, on which date it was withdrawn.
(vii) The petitioner is guilty of suppression and intentionally
misleading this court as to the existence of availing an alternate
remedy, on which ground alone the petition needs to be thrown out.
(viii) The decree as passed by the Civil Court in Regular Civil Suit
No. 83/2014, was without jurisdiction, and therefore, did not bind
the respondents 1 and 2, for which reliance is placed on Village
Panchayat, Antora vrs. Wasudeo Ramchandra Mohod and another,
2014 (5) Mh. L.J.189 (para 11).
7] Mr. Shingane, learned counsel for intervenor supports
the argument advanced by Mr. Gawande, learned counsel for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2. He further submits that since the petitioner
in the layout plan submitted along with the application for grant of
"NA permission" himself shows the existence of a road passing
through the land of Survey No. 119/5, the petitioner is estopped
from contending otherwise.
wp1048.20.odt
8] Mr. Manohar, learned Senior Counsel in rebuttal submits
that there is no suppression and neither there was any intention to
do so. He submits that merely because proceedings were filed before
the SDO, that would not bar the petitioner from availing the remedy
under Article 226 of the Constitutions before this Court. He submits
that the proceedings before the SDO were not maintainable, were
not prosecuted, but were withdrawn at the earliest possible
opportunity and therefore did not prejudice the parties in any
manner. He places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. vrs. State of Bihar and
ors, (2004) 7 SCC 166; and on Arunima Baruah vrs. Union of India,
(2007) 6 SCC 120. He further submits that it has to be also
considered by this Court in such circumstances whether the position
which was not mentioned, was material.
9] A bare perusal of the impugned order indicates that the
same has been passed all post haste inasmuch as in spite of the
earlier communication by Respondent No.3 dated 29.8.2019
addressed to the Deputy Director of Land Records, for determining
the location of the road and from which sub-division of Survey
wp1048.20.odt
No.119 it was passing and the request for submitting such report in
that regard; in spite of the return communication by the Deputy
Director, Land Record, dated 12.9.2019, to Respondent No.3, asking
him to deposit the measurement fee, nothing was done. Even the
report of the Talathi Kandli, as referred to in the impugned order,
from what has been stated in the order about it, clearly indicated
that he was not in a position to determine from which part of Survey
No.119, the alleged road was passing, as the entire land stood
divided into various parts. Though the report of the Talathi, as
adverted to by Respondent No.3 refers to a plan, in which the
pandhan road has been shown, the details of the plan, who had
prepared it and when, are conspicuously absent. Though the
impugned order records that there is 80 feet Development Plan road
passing through the land of Survey No.119, no such Development
Plan has been placed on record to substantiate this position, which
indicates that there is no such reservation at all, for had it been so,
nothing prevented the respondents from placing the same on record,
which to lead an irresistible conclusion, that no such reservation, is
in existence. Even the impugned order does not indicate the date of
the Development Plan, the reservation number, which is claimed to
wp1048.20.odt
be a DP road of 80 feet. In spite of the above position being on
record, that it was impossible to ascertain the location of the alleged
pandhan road, the Respondent No. 3 went ahead in passing the
impugned order, which clearly is unsustainable in law.
10] Though Section 53 of the Maharashtra Village
Panchayat Act enjoins upon Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to remove the
encroachment and it is in pursuance to that duty that the
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 claimed to have acted in issuing the notice
dated 15.2.2020, to the petitioner, however, it is equally true, that
the respondents 1 and 2 being party to the judgment and decree as
passed in RCS No.83/2014, were duly bound by it, and ought to
have brought this position to the notice of the learned Tahsildar, who
had passed the impugned order. Since the notice dated 15/2/2020,
is in pursuance to the order dated 31/1/2020, which has been
quashed and set aside, the notice dated 15/2/2020, as a consequent
fallout also has to go.
11] Even for exercising, the power under Section 50 of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, to which the impugned order, is
wp1048.20.odt
sought to be attributed, it has first to be demonstrated that the land
vests in the Government, as against which, in the instant matter, it is
an admitted position that the land of Survey No.119/5, is owned by
the petitioner and therefore, the question of applicability of
Section 50 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code would not have
arisen in the given facts of the present matter.
12] The contention of Mr. Gawande, learned Counsel for the
respondents 1 and 2 that the land of Survey No.119/5 still continues
to be agricultural land, appears to be incorrect, for the reason, that
the initial order of the Tahsildar, permitting non-agricultural
(industrial) use was dated 30/12/1995. The application for review
of this order, was allowed on 21/3/2014 by the Tahsildar, which
order in review came to be set aside by the Additional Collector, by
his order dated 21/3/2014, while remanding the matter back and
therefore, the order in review dated 21/3/2014, ceased to exist on
account of it being set aside, which indicates, that the order of
conversion dated 30/12/1995, still continues to hold the field, due
to which the user of the land, continues to be industrial, as of date.
wp1048.20.odt
13] The contention of Mr. Shingane, learned counsel for
intervenor, that since the petitioner in the layout plan submitted
along with the application for grant of "NA permission" himself
shows the existence of a road passing through the land of Survey No.
119/5, the petitioner is estopped from contending otherwise,
appears to be in conflict, with the Taluka map, filed by the
respondents 4 to 7, on record, along with the Pursis dated
22/9/2021, which shows, a way, passing through the South-East
corner of Survey No.119. The map, however, does not indicate the
width of the road or for that matter, its exact passage through any
sub-division of the original Survey No.119, in view of which, the
report of the Talathi, that there was a need for measurement to
determine, from which sub-division of Survey No.119, the road
passed, clearly assumed significance and without such measurement,
the impugned order could not have presumed the existence of the
road from the land of Survey No.119/5.
14] In view of what has been said regarding the
inapplicability of Section 50 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code,
1966, the contention regarding the existence of an alternate remedy,
wp1048.20.odt
is clearly untenable. Even otherwise, the existence of an alternate
remedy cannot always be a bar for invoking the jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
15] Much can be said about the conduct of the petitioner, in
the matter of filing of the present petition, however considering that
no attempts were made to prosecute both the remedies
simultaneously and the appeal before the SDO came to be
withdrawn, and since the learned counsel for the respondents are
magnanimous enough to not seriously press this ground about
suppression, when asked again I, am refraining myself from going
into this issue. Needless to say that the counsel drafting the petition
is forewarned to take appropriate care in the matter of taking
instructions and making averments in the future.
16] In view of the above discussion, the impugned order
dated 31/1/2020, passed by the Respondent No.3 and the notice
dated 15/2/2020 as issued by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are
hereby quashed and set aside. It is however, made clear that this
would not disentitle the authorities from initiating appropriate
wp1048.20.odt
enquiries, under the relevant provisions of law to ascertain the claim
regarding the existence of a road and determine its boundary after
due measurement from the concerned authorities. The petition,
therefore, is allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs.
17] Mr. Shingane, learned counsel for
intervenors/Respondent Nos.4 to 7 and Mr. Gawande, learned
counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, contend that since the villagers
are already using the road from the land of Survey No. 119/5, the
present judgment be stayed for a period of six weeks to enable them
to approach the Hon'ble Apex Court. Considering that the matter
relates to an issue of road which is claimed to be used by the
villagers, the impugned judgment is stayed for a period of six weeks
from today.
JUDGE
Rvjalit
